PSoTD

Lightheaded question of the day:

What hair shampoo do you prefer to use?

Weird. Why am I getting spam today about home mortgages with the subject line of ""leaning in favor" of voting to confirm Alito. Conrad also is not part of the Gang of 14"?

Shouldn't you at least have mentioned the Alito cloture and confirmation votes? Isn't it at least that important?

The light you carried shines brightly.

Going back to my earlier post...

The following states had two Democratic Party Senators that voted for closure yesterday:

Arkansas (2)
Hawaii (2)
North Dakota (2)
West Virginia (2)

I'm looking for some good, regularly updated liberal blogs from those states to keep on my blogroll. The theory is that liberal bloggers need to promote at least one voice and an eye for each state. Using leftyblogs, and a subjective standard that the blogger had to have posted about the cloture vote (regardless of viewpoint on the issue) as a timeliness/issue standard, I've come up with the following so far:

Arkansas - none

Hawaii -
The Online Magazine Known as Rob's Blog
Linkmeister

North Dakota -
The Flickertail Journal
Holding North Dakota's Breath Until It Turns Blue

West Virginia - none

Please peruse. And feel free to suggest blogs to review. This is in no way comprehensive at this point.

From eR:

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) will be introducing legislation initiated by the Coaltion for Voting Integrity to push back the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) deadline past the 2006 primary season. This is legislation that counties all over the country have been begging for. This is legislation that helps the cases of Connecticut and New York, both of which have announced that they will not be HAVA-compliant anywhere near the deadline of the 2006 primaries.

During the meetings with Fitzpatrick and his staff one thing became abundantly clear to me: if this bill is going to pass in time to make a difference, it will only be because enough citizens from around the country call their Congressional reps in the Senate and the House to say that they want it to be law. We need you to pick up the phone again today and call your Senators and your Reps and tell them that Fitzpatrick's bill to extend the HAVA deadline past the primary must pass immediately. I don't have a number for it yet, but when I do, I'll post it. It's possible that the aide won't know what you're talking about. That's okay. This is all happening very fast. If you mention HAVA and Fitzpatrick, they'll get the message.

Robin's asking for help from the netroots on this legislation. If you're interested in knowing more about the issues for local government and HAVA, a simple Google News Search is pretty educational as well.

If liberal bloggers are really a growing political force in the Democratic Party, perhaps we need to work to spread some of that force out geographically. On the cloture vote, Democratic Senators from the following states voted for cloture:

Arkansas (2)
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii (2)
Louisiana
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Dakota (2)
South Dakota
Washington
West Virginia (2)
Wisconsin

Perhaps over the next year or so, the largest of the liberal blogger traffic hubs should seek quality liberal/progressive blogs in these states to promote and build visibility. National pressure is valuable, local pressure means voters.

Leftyblogs is a good starting point for reference. Unfortunately, the Reader Blogs listing at DailyKos is too dated to be of much value.

I don't quite agree with Jane to the level of how good the news of the efforts for the filibuster was (compared to the results), but it is progress to build upon, which is something we've been missing for years. I'm feeling better about yesterday - I can't put a happy face on it, but I do think that Kerry and others did step up, did put pressure on other Democrats, and now we have a scorecard of Democratic Senators with whom bloggers have made an impact with, and the rest that have yet to understand what the grassroots desires.

Susie:

I suggest those of you who have been giving money respond to the next direct-mail appeal by writing a short note: “Until the congressional Democrats get a spine, I will give only to those individuals on whom I can count to represent me.”

This might be the single most useful thing we can do. Because if all that money that was going to the DNC and the DSCC goes instead to the senators who listened to us, we strengthen their hand. If they’re sitting on a large pot of money, the wafflers will have to come around to get a piece.

Sure enough.

Maybe this opposition to Bush's spend and bend the Constitution idea is just completely wrongheaded in how we practice it. I'm not planning on becoming a conservative. But perhaps I should think about becoming a Republican. What if millions and millions of liberals left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party? Why, you ask? To force liberal viewpoints into their primaries and their non-competitive district elections, of course. If we can't get Democrats to do what we want, then maybe we ought to join the Republicans and get them to do it, or at least to quit doing what we don't like.

It is our vote to use as we see fit. We don't have to vote Republican. But perhaps we ought to register Republican. Perhaps, as liberals, we ought to start voting in stealth mode, supporting this candidate or that candidate while registering Republican and confusing both major parties as to our number and our intents. I don't know. How many millions of liberals, registering as Republicans across the nation, would it take to water down conservative efforts? What's to stop us from attending local Club meetings, espousing our liberal views, and then loudly proclaim that we are Republicans? As long as we believe what we believe, and espouse what we believe, who cares what political party label is attached to it? Does it even matter any more what the label says? What matters is what's on the inside.

Sometimes, I just don't have a clue how things are going to get any better for liberals. Perhaps, rather than trying to defeat the conservatives, we need to be assimilated by them. I don't give a shit about the party labels. But I care about results in governing. And I'm not getting any happier about the results.

It's really about the price of stamps.

What would be the financial impact on you, personally, if a first class stamp went up to 75 cents - more than double it's current cost? Great? No big deal? Somewhere in the middle?

Possibly, for some Pennsylvania Democrats, at least.

whether the Senate Democrats can function as a party of intent about anything, whether we're any closer to such a party of intent, or if they're just a bunch of franchise owners.

I'm sure that within the next three years, this "authority" will be the loins from which controversy and dismay will be delivered.

Congress has granted unusual authority for the Pentagon to spend as much as $200 million of its own budget to aid foreign militaries, a break with the traditional practice of channeling foreign military assistance through the State Department.

The move, included in a little-noticed provision of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act passed last month, marks a legislative victory for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pushed hard for the new powers to deal with emergency situations.

But it has drawn warnings from foreign policy specialists inside and outside the government, who say it could lead to growth of a separate military assistance effort not subject to the same constraints applied to foreign aid programs that are administered by the State Department. Such constraints are meant to ensure that aid recipients meet certain standards, including respect for human rights and protection of legitimate civilian authorities.

Does anyone doubt that this is going to be abused?

"This was the most heavily lobbied we've been by the Pentagon in the several years I've been here," one Senate staff member said. ``They really, really wanted this."

Bad, bad sense of foreboding about this...

The San Jose Mercury News:

To more effectively oppose Supreme Court nominees in the future, Democrats need to convince the public "their values are at stake" rather than use stalling tactics to try to thwart the president, said a senator who opposes Samuel Alito's confirmation.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., predicted on Sunday that an effort to try to block a final vote on Alito would fail on Monday. That would clear the way for Senate approval Tuesday of the federal appeals court judge picked to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Apparently for Obama, putting their money where their mouths are by pushing for filibuster doesn't count as an effort to convince the public that their values are at stake. I just don't see why the Democrats can't argue that they support the filibuster because of the values issue. Maybe it won't be successful. But if Obama believes that convincing is needed, then pissing on this effort as a tactic, rather than promoting it as a values-driven last-ditch effort, is pure politics and no values at all. What is the point of devaluing the fight before it happens? It's the "I told you we were gonna lose" told-ya-so gambit.

Well, too late. Senate Democrats lose, period, whether they wuss out or lose after a fight with a filibuster. They lose. It's a question of fighting or surrendering.

BTW, nice job, Obama, pissing on the concept of filibuster in the future. For anything. Way to walk into the Republicans hands on this. Any other small procedural tools of use to the minority Democrats you care to crap on? If so... please keep it to yourself.

It's money versus voters. It's time the Democrats have this fight. We're an electorate, not an advertising market.

Since there's apparently some risk, why not octopus insurance?

As I've said before, I do the grocery shopping each week. Recently a Giant supermarket reopened - bigger, glitzier, more endowed with specialties and services that I don't need. And a Wegmans promises to open a couple of miles the other direction, with the same kinds of things.

Me? I go to Karns. It's a local supermarket in Central Pennsylvania, and their big claim to fame is that their meat department is fantastic. And, in general, I'm very happy about the quality and cost of meat there. The rest of the grocery isn't necessarily better than anyone else, but it is functional, and I suspect their prices pretty much fall in line with the other grocery stores in the area.

I go to Karns because of convenience, and the meat, and the lack of crowds. I go on Saturday morning, when other groceries are teeming, but Karns is just doing a steady clip of business. Often I'm one of the younger shoppers there, and I'll be turning 47 in a few weeks. In some ways they cater to the older population of our area. They use smaller carts, which are easier for older people to push around, and are more appropriate spacewise for a 1 or 2 person household. I see more cereal products in particular that seem to me to be old-fashioned or not of interest to anyone under 30 than I remember in other groceries. I suspect there are other product areas that may also be more dedicated to the older population.

But I wonder. Karns doesn't try to be a "cool" grocery to attract younger buyers. It seems to have an older population as its core market. It isn't a big chain that can have many marketplace specialty stores - it is what it is. So, as their older market ages, and eventually... stops shopping there, how does Karns survive?

I don't really know, but I'm curious as to how this will work out. I like Karns, and one of the reasons I like it is perversely because it does NOT try to be a "cool" grocery store. It operates within a limited premise of what a grocery store is, and leaves the drycleaning and fast food restaurants and dog grooming for other businesses at other locations. Karns' management appears to be satisifed with delivering within the traditional scope of "groceries". I can respect that.

One of the reasons I do not like the new Giant is the horrible parking setup they have. One of the reasons the Wegmans may not be my choice is that it's further away than Karns, and in a heavy traffic area.

That leaves me in a position of actually rooting for Karns. I'm just hoping that as a business, they're getting enough business. I'm hoping we'll be living in the house we currently live in for the next 13-14 years, until the kids get out of school. That's a lot of groceries. At this point, I'd prefer to do the shopping at Karns.

I've always wondered who thought Martin Lawrence was particularly funny... maybe it's an urban legend.

Jeez. A Republican campaign manager for a Republican candidate for Governor calls the race of another Republican candidate for Governor into a debate, and Michelle Malkin still has to find a way to slime the left in her post. There's just no objective commentary from her on the news value of any story, it all has to fit into her propaganda product somehow. What a horrible tasting formula...

Monday is the birthday of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, born on January 30, 1882.

There was an article in the Lebanon Daily News earlier this week that contrasted Roosevelt with our current President's administration. It is of value to remember this contrast over the next week, not just in honor of Roosevelt's birthday, but as we listen to what Bush has to say in the State of the Union address, a description of the speech originally given by the same President Roosevelt.

In the midst of the Great Depression Franklin D. Roosevelt warned us that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Now, when we are facing the threat of terrorism from radical Islamic fundamentalists, we are surrendering to fear and embracing it as our way of life. This pervasive fear will lead to the loss of what we fear most to lose — our democratic values.

Terror happens; some fear is justifiable. Osama bin Laden did not have to send his recent message for us to know that he is planning another attack. We know that as long as we are projecting force into the Arab world that al-Qaida will continue to attack.

It is time to question our fear. Vice President Dick Cheney, when defending government spying, said: “Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not.”

He meant it rhetorically. That is, he says we must be serious enough to give him more power. But we can take his question and get serious about our fear as an appropriate response to the actual threat.

The real question is: How much of what we treasure are we willing to give up to fight this war on terror?

We need to comfort those who are afraid of terrorists with Roosevelt's words. We have been attacked before in our country's history, and we will likely be attacked at some point again in the future. It happens to all countries. But we can't let the fear of attack define us, or else that will be what our country stands for in the 21st century. We need our liberties. We need our rights. We don't need to be focused on fear. Remember Roosevelt's words.

The recipe, as promised. Look for the movie in a few years.

Verna McCallum's Chicken Tetrazzini recipe

(Makes 4 to 6 servings)

1/4 pound butter
2 tablespoons grated onion
2 tablespoons flour
2 cups chicken or turkey broth
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
1 cup heavy cream
2 tablespoons dry sherry
1/4 cup grated gruyere or swiss cheese
1/4 pound mushrooms, sliced
1/2 pound thin spaghetti, cooked and rained
2 cups finely sliced cooked chicken
1/2 cup grated parmesan cheese

Melt half the butter in a skillet; saute the onion five minutes. Blend in the flour. Gradually add the broth, stirring constantly to the boiling point. Mix in the salt, pepper, cream, sherry, and Swiss cheese. Cook over low heat ten minutes, stirring frequently. Taste for seasonings.

Melt the remaining butter in a skillet; saute the mushrooms five minutes, stirring frequently. Add the spaghetti and half the sauce. Mix together lightly. Pour into a buttered casserole. Mix the chicken with the remaining sauce and pour over spaghetti. Sprinkle with the parmesan cheese.

Bake in a 350-degree oven for 30 minutes.

Vernon Davis, tight end, Maryland

Are we at risk of becoming over-RSSed?

There's a concerted effort to change your behavior. Guess what? It's popular! If that fails, there will likely be a concerted effort to have you canned.

For bloggers: Don't you find it an insult that Chris Matthews can "brand" our activity by implying that he's a blogger?

About Russert and Matthews and their ilk:

Among journalists, there's a deep sense of pride in the craft of journalism - I just attended a luncheon yesterday with some old practitioners, and they are proud of the work they do. And honestly, much of it is excellent excellent work. And they are keen to talk ethics, and blogging, and print journalism. But whenever I bring up TV, and especially cable TV, immediately reporters throw up their hands and avoid responsibility. They say things like "Chris Matthews is an asshole" or "Don't engage him" or "Fox News isn't what I do", as if the American public's responsibility to police the craft of journalism that they take so much pride in policing.

...

That same standard is NEVER applied to bloggers - are they journalists, are they reporters, are they mean people on the internet - there's endless handwringing about that question, and a deep sense that this-is-a-very-important issue-that-we-must-all-talk-and-fret-abo ut. Well, that's fine, except that if you believe you belong to a craft, and there is a self-policing mechanism, you have to actually self-police.

That means asking the same questions of Chris Matthews and Tim Russert as you ask of bloggers and journalists. I don't see that happening. And since television is an immensely powerful medium that dominates our discourse, I find it fairly irresponsible that there is such a lack of discouse.

It is time for a bipartisan blogger chat roundtable on the ethics of cable news programming. Hear that, Washington Post? I won't complain this time if you invite Instapundit...

Google is making some dough on Passion Parties. Right hand side has the most ads I've ever seen...

and no, I'm not planning on hosting a party...

This will be telling on so many different fronts.

Frist's move came as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was lobbying his Democratic colleagues to filibuster the Alito nomination — an uphill fight, given that none of the chamber's 55 Republicans have opposed his confirmation and three Democrats are on the record supporting it.

The biggest risk to the Democratic Party Senators would be if they fail to put a filibuster together at this point, but it is also the biggest potential gain. Most the world knows that the Democratic Senators currently are paper tigers, unable to hang together strong enough to stop anything, but populous enough to have their complaints heard (and subsequently ignored). This is a critical point with them, because their supporters - not their constituents, but Democrats in general - are now in a position to see whether these Senators can ever be what we want them to be - real tigers for change. Or, are they not even paper, but just imaginary tigers?

Bully for Kerry for pushing forward on this. Fie on the Senate Democrats who will oppose Alito but won't filibuster him - that's just political stance gibberish. Do Democrats have enough real tigers to make this work, or are Democrats infiltrated with enough imaginary ones that prevent them from ever taking the hard stand?

It's about time the decision became obvious.

I just noticed we've been added to a couple of blogrolls, so time to roll out the grand thank yous to...

Merlot Democrats

Geeky Mom

Much appreciated!

Probably not, but Bamacrat has details.

What kind of freaking moron newspaper editor publishes this kind of slanderous shit about the political party of half the nation?

Why, it's the Sun-Sentinel.

It's one thing when readers are this simple. It's another when a publisher promotes their newspaper as the choice of such readers by printing the most ignorant tripe their readers can generate. It's a paean for stoogedom.

Here's your chance to mix your realities:

From the entire history of television, and if television characters were real, which character would you like to have move in next door to you?

Anyone know how to do this easily? I wanted to convert the html used for the links for Koufax candidates for Blogs Most Deserving of Wider Recognition into OPML, and then load them into my bloglines account, but I just spent an hour working on it and am not getting good results when uploading. I'm sure it is my cobbled together OPML file with hamhanded copy and replace efforts. I figured the OPML could also be made available for anyone else who wants to import these blogs into their RSS reader. Any help out there? I'm looking for something easy on my fingers...

Republican Governor Primary in Pennsylvania just got a little race-oriented:

PoliticsPA: "DeCoursey/ CapitolWire: Scranton Fires Manager Pete DeCoursey of CapitolWire is reporting that Former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton fired his campaign manager, friend and ally Jim Seif, Wednesday night after Seif said on statewide television that "the rich white guy in this campaign is Lynn Swann."

That statewide television would be PCN.

Daddy will promote you even though it is clear you're getting the gig only because I'm your Daddy.

Oh, I'm sure the Thanksgiving gettogethers 25 years from now will fun in the Russert household. Timmeh, long shoveled off to the scrapbin of has-beens, bobbing his evergrowing head at his son, reminiscing how he made him what he was today...

The number of Pennsylvania State Legislators not running for re-election this year...

I was looking through the Koufax Award nominees and I want to say I really like Beautiful Horizons. Randy Paul has an interest close to my heart - Brasil, the land, the people, the culture, the music. It's probably a little closer to his heart, since his wife is Brasilian as well. I have to admit I'm a little jealous, I haven't been to Brazil since 1990 and it looks like Randy's been there several times since then. I'm waiting for our kids to be a little older, and then I want to take them to the Pantanal...

Take a look. I really like the feeling of this blog... and I think I'm going to like some of the music recommendations as well.

Received a notice that PCN Blog was mentioned on Pennsylvania Cable Network last night. I missed it, out playing hoops. Traffic blipped up slightly. Progress!

It's here. The idea that you should include a blog (Instapundit) that doesn't allow comments in a discussion about comments is moronic, and Brady's responses to why Instapundit was included never gets past that problem. Try to use experts with experience in the subject. Bleh.

By the way, Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine, who was also in the discussion, has a great point about something important the Post failed to do: include Deborah Howell.

Here's today's question:

Imagine the blogosphere was not here today, and had not existed. Think about how you might be feeling and thinking, politically, about this country, the leaders, the political parties, without the blogosphere. Can you imagine this? The lack of sharing of information, of thought, of ideas, of beliefs. Where would you be, politically?

Compare to reality. How, if any, has the mere existence of the blogosphere radicalized you politically?

(Note: for purposes of this question, go with the following definition(s) of the term radical: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs)

NTodd is right. Filibuster, you idiots.

It may not be fog of the traditional sort. Maybe it is your neighbor's outdoor insect mist system...

Judge Tosses Daytona Beach Nudity Law

A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach's anti-nudity laws, saying they are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge John Antoon decided Friday that Daytona Beach's laws prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol violate the First and 14th amendments' protections of free speech and equal protection.

Dear Bloglines,

You know what would be cool? If there were an easy way to import a list of present blog feeds into my myblogs account. If you did this, then blog award sites could offer that list as an advantage of being nominated for an award - for example, the Most Deserving of Wider Recognition category of the Koufax awards.

Please consider it. I think it would be a valuable service addition to Bloglines.

Play the quiz.

Pacers reportedly trade Ron Artest to Kings for Peja Stojakovic.

Or not.

Or so.

Today's question requires you to look ahead a bit:

What city in America will be the most difficult to manage successfully by 2050?

I have no idea of the accuracy of the headline, but it's guaranteed wildfire on the blogs...

Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst

Not much in the way of details on this preparation. Time to check out the nation's martial law provisions.

Ugh.

Sen. Rick Santorum's leading Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey, announced Tuesday that he endorses Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Casey's endorsement came shortly after Gov. Ed Rendell said Tuesday during a news conference in Washington that he reluctantly supports Alito's confirmation. Smar said the timing was a coincidence.

Nice try to provide cover, Ed.

This ought to be some good wood for burning for the Chuck Pennacchio for US Senate campaign... I see he's already on it.

Polar bears are one of the planet's most contaminated organisms. I would not have guessed.

Pennsylvania has lots of structural government issues that would best be discussed in a macro effort - a Constitutional Convention. Such things as number of legislators, how lobbyists should be regulated, tax structure, etc., could be looked at in a much clearer picture.

However... as long as we have clowns trying to do things like define marriage as part of the State Constitution, there's really no way to consider having a Constitutional Convention. And... we have such clowns.

Most internet users outside of bloggers have no clue about the future of use with RSS. So we still need more mainstream articles on the topic...

While looking into Bush's visit to Kansas State University, I discovered the University's College Republican web site. I think KSU's College Republicans have the best web site, and I particularly like the section called "Why I am right". It's a very complete answer.

If you believe that the bloggers posted as nominees for the Most Deserving of Wider Recognition actually deserve wider recognition - then why not put them on your blogroll?

PSoTD is in good company in the Most Deserving of Wider Recognition category of the Koufax awards. Too good of company, but it does provide me with some incentive to try to do even more in the upcoming year.

Today's question:

What web site is the most dangerous to the long-term stability of the United States government?

What, you haven't seen it already?

I'd be willing to bet a six-pack of Yuengling that if any reporter digs into this, they'll find the Republican Party all over the determination of attendance of this speech.

Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
Aboard Air Force One
En route Topeka, Kansas

Q Scott, how was the ticketing handled for today's event? How were they handed out?

MR. McCLELLAN: Through the university and through the base.

Q No Republican Party?

MR. McCLELLAN: We typically give to some of the congressional offices, so they may have had some -- but it would have been a relatively small number of tickets. Like I said, I think you're going to have some 6,000 students or so attending the event.

McClellan didn't say no. College Republicans involved? Who knows. Hey news media - Why not pester McClellan to actually answer the question?

I have to say, this is a damn tough category this year. Lots and lots of quality.

DEBKAfile has a report that this may be what has caused the recent spate of helicopter downings in Iraq.

I am, and have been for years, the regular grocery shopper in our family (it was a trade of chores around the house, and I much prefer the grocery shopping chore). Our oldest child is nine, and we have been in the somewhat lazy habit of buying cookies for use as after dinner treats for several years now.

Anyone that has been buying cookies for this long of time is well aware of the packaging shrinkage that has been going on. I don't know how many ounces a standard package of Oreos or Fig Newtons or Vanilla Wafers was 7 years ago, but I know it was bigger than it is today. Oh, and cheaper too, but that's beside my point but exactly the snack companies point - to increase the cost by cookie rather than by package. The consumer, although they may be wily enough to compare per ounce costs of product on a per-visit basis, does not retain that cost breakdown for the longterm - it's just not a convenient way to look at buying cookies or crackers or cereal, since the product size is fixed. You pay $3.39 for a package of cookies, not $3.39 for 13.5 ounces of cookies.

And so - there's my beef. I think snack manufacturers ought to be required to plainly and loudly put the product count on the front or top of the package - at least the intended count, with a leeway for breakage. Don't bury it with the small print of ingredients. My $3.60 box of cookies provides 18 cookies? I can remember 20 cents per cookie. Later, when my $3.60 box shrinks, and only contains 12 cookies, I can way WHOA! That's a 50% increase! Because I'll remember...

Certain grocery items lend themselves to weight, but some don't. We don't go around saying we want to eat .75 of one ounce of cookie material - we say we want a cookie. The true consumer-friendly way to provide pricing for cookies is to give a per-package and per-cookie price.

I don't know if you ever catch the Catholic League's President William Donohue on the talk shows, but he has a problem on those shows: he appears to be one of the most pompous, irritating, and mentally dulled people they can book. He delivers some of the most simplistic and flawed arguments on television. Maybe he isn't usually this way. But I've seen him on a variety of shows, and that personality inevitably blares through. And it also shines through his writing.

However, that's nothing compared to the problem the Catholic Church has had over the past 100 years - apparently Donohue was voted "one of the top 100 Catholics of the 20th century" (according to the Catholic League web site). Wow. Talk about bad centuries for a religion. All the Popes, all the archibishops and bishops and charity leaders and government leaders and everything else, and Donohue made the top 100? Ouch.

Update: Donohue came in 17th in the countdown of the 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005. He has some work to do yet.

From the Reading Eagle:

The Issue: Republican gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann refuses to debate with any other candidates prior to Feb. 11, when the state GOP is set to endorse a candidate.

Our Opinion: Swann needs to demonstrate how well he can perform if he expects to earn that endorsement.

...

Furthermore, he has written a letter to his primary foe for the Republican nomination, former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton, refusing to participate in any debates until after the state GOP endorses a candidate on Feb. 11.

Instead Swann proposed a series of three debates between March 7, the deadline for candidates to turn in nomination petitions, and the May 16 primary.

There would be nothing wrong with those debates, which the Swann campaign proposed for Pittsburgh, Lancaster and Philadelphia, but Swann also should be willing to appear in a debate later this week in Harrisburg before his party endorses a candidate.

"We want to commit to a healthy schedule of such events so that the people of Pennsylvania have the opportunity to compare our candidates side by side," wrote Swann's campaign manager, Ray Zaborney.

That's all well and good, but shouldn't party bosses have the same opportunity before they make their decision on whom to back?

How can the party be expected to endorse a candidate when one of the two leading contenders is unwilling to face his opponent?

It will be very interesting to see if the Pennsylvania Republican Party chooses to endorse an untested candidate. Does the Party have to make an endorsement? It seems like it would be in their best interest to let this play out...

and they admit it in print, then you reassign them.

Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.

No doubt, many in the press, probably most, will support Deborah Howell and her pantywaist whining of how she was mistreated by bloggers for making a simple mistake. Oh, she is the poor abused ombudsman at the Washington Post.

But the whole goddamn key to the problem is right here:

Going forward, here's my plan. I'll watch every word. I'll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can.

What is the Washington Post doing hiring as the ombudsman a person who didn't know this was the requirement of the job going in? Why did it take a firestorm for Deborah Howell to realize she should watch every word when responding to complaints? How can she be so ignorant in her understanding of today's hyper-partisan world that when commenting on an issue within that world, she has to have everything as absolutely right as possible? This wasn't just bad writing. It was bad understanding as well.

The problem isn't Howell. The problem is that the Washington Post isn't taking this job seriously enough. That's why there is a firestorm. Hopefully, all newspapers will learn a lesson from this, or suffer similar occurrences.

Finally, there's this snide comment by Howell:

To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.

To that I would say, if such a paragraph is what is on your mind, you probably shouldn't count your chickens before they're hatched. Just because you have a contract doesn't mean the Post will continue to give you the venue. Continue to hack around in these issues and you'll be about as valuable to the Post as used tissue. A simple "I made a mistake, I admit it, I will try to learn from it, and I'm open to fair suggestions" goes a lot farther for the longterm purposes of the Washington Post than the public whining about how so many mean emails and blog posts were made about you.

See... Bush shouldn't be setting deadlines for anything after all...

In March 2004, the president set a goal of broadband access for all Americans within three years.

"We ought to have universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007, and then we ought to make sure as soon as possible thereafter, consumers have got plenty of choices when it comes to purchasing the broadband carrier," Bush said at the time.

When Bush set the 2007 goal, America ranked 13th in broadband penetration rates. According to the latest numbers from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the U.S. has fallen to 16th.

The ITU analysts attribute America's falling numbers to a lack of cohesive government policy while others attribute it the vast and diverse U.S. geography.

Of course, it would help if we had a President who "gets it" about the Internet in general, and the vast changes still in store for us as it evolves. This isn't very impressive, however.

The president called broadband expansion a "brilliant" idea.

No, it isn't a brilliant idea. It's a market demand.

My mom used to make the greatest chicken tetrazzini. It was so good, it was the meal I picked for my birthday dinner about 4 years in a row.

When my wife and I were married back in 1993, one of the things my Mom did is give me the copies of all the recipes for meals she used to make when we were kids. Over our childhood, through trial and error, she built a recipe collection of what three kids, including one that was trying to survive on rolls and meat, would eat, and today I have a copy of that collection.

It had been a few years since I made chicken tetrazzini, but last Friday I made it, and it brought me back to childhood. Seemed just as good as my mom made. Lasted one dinner and one leftovers lunch before it disappeared. Was eaten by our two sometimes food finicky kids.

The recipe itself is a copy of a newspaper clipping from an old old newspaper, most likely the Marion or Muncie Indiana newspapers, since that's the area we lived when chicken tetrazzini hit the scene in our home. The author of the recipe was one Verna McCallum, and so I felt obliged to "google" her and see if there were any other fantastic recipes associated with her on the Internet.

There were 22 listings for Verna. None had recipes. Only one looked like they were about this Verna McCallum, and it was just a name listing. There's a picture with the recipe, and she looks to be in her sixties in the photo, and the photo is from the 1960s... I sat there and thought that this woman most likely has slipped from our earthly bounds without leaving much of a record that she was here publicly findable, at least on Google.

Considering the amount of pleasure I enjoyed as a kid eating chicken tetrazzini, and how much I had just a few days ago doing the same, this seems a bit unfair. Without Verna McCallum, I may have had corndogs or homemade pizza as my birthday dinner when I was growing up. Without Verna McCallum, I may not have been able to to tell (or bore) my kids with my stories about chicken tetrazzini and birthday dinners just last week. And the same with this posting now. And so...

Thanks, Verna McCallum, for the chicken tetrazzini. It is delicious.

This is the kind of thing that happens when humans, through government policy, forget about survival of our species and focus on the wealthy comfort of the species.

Recently I asked some questions of William Sargent, who is a Democrat running for the Pennsylvania House 42nd District this year. His campaign site is here.

Dave from Fester's Place had suggested that Sargent had some interesting views on the lobbying laws in Pennsylvania, which is sort of a general political interest for this blog. I asked Mr. Sargent if he'd answer some questions, and below are the questions and his responses. I'm hoping to follow up in the next week with a few other questions. This seems to me to be a worthwhile project this year - to ask Pennsylvania General Assembly candidates - not incumbents - on their views concerning lobbying law in the Commonwealth during the campaign, and see if there are some details - and perhaps some consensus - reported. If you have any suggested questions for me to ask Mr. Sargent for next week, feel free to drop them in comments or in email.

Question 1: What should be the goals of any lobbying laws or reform in Pennsylvania?

William Sargent: The goals of meaningfully lobbying reform and the purpose of reforming the laws in Pennsylvania are to minimize corruption at all levels of government, ensure equal access for every citizen, corporation and interest group by setting uniform standards of reporting monies or gifts given to public officials and providing for oversight and accountability.

Pennsylvania is the only state without a lobbyist disclosure law to control influence peddling by special interests. The article in the PG today was only made possible by a Senate Rule not a Pennsylvania Law.

Question 2: What entity or entities should be responsible for administering these laws?

William Sargent: Previously the courts have struck down a lobbyist disclosure law because the courts felt that it was within the purview of the judicial branch to provide the sole ability to oversee officers of the court (attorneys) and because lobbyists are sometime attorneys then the PA House and Senate cannot regulate them.

I disagree. According to that logic, then only the courts can have oversight into the House and Senate because the vast majority of its members are attorneys.

The PA House and Senate should provide its own oversight in a bi partisan fashion over its members.

Question 3: Are there any other states that could or should serve as a model for lobbying regulation?

William Sargent: In light of the activities of certain members of the congress and lobbyists working within the beltway there way been several bills proposed by both senators and congressmen about lobbying reform.

John McCain has introduced a good bill and Russ Feingold has introduced a piece of legislation that is even more restrictive. (Interesting on how these two gentlemen could come to terms on campaign finance but have different bills for this topic but yet I digress.)

To answer your questions I am inclined to say that the more restrictive, the better off you are.

(1) If you leave government service, there must be a period of time to elapse before you may return as a private citizen lobbying your former employer/ colleagues.

(2) No gifts/trips/rides.

(3) You must disclose how your money is spent if you spend more than $2,500 a quarter.

I noticed a couple of new blogrolls of PSoTD this week, and it's time to say thanks to...

Last Left Turn Before Hooterville

100 monkeys typing.

Thanks!

Thank you sir, may I have another...

Today's question:

Which blogger would you most like to see run for public office - and which office?

God, the news media is full of babies. The Washington Post. The New York Times. CNN. Waaah, waaah, bloggers say mean things about us. Waaaah, waaaah, they say we're not doing our job right. Waaah waaah waaah.

You would think that organizations with so much money and power would be a little more thick-skinned about the upstart news dissemination process, but maybe they always knew that their business and power models were built more on alchemy than science, and this was the moment they always feared, the days when news consumers created their own distribution models and no longer were dependent on any particular primary source. They sure are shrill about the criticisms. So what.

Make 'em cry.

From PennLive:

The music business is notorious for attracting its share of liars, cheats and thieves.

The Legislature is doing its part to make sure of one thing -- that when you pay to see The Platters, The Coasters or The Drifters, that's who's on stage.

During this legislative session, the state House will vote on the Truth in Musical Performance bill that was unanimously approved by the state Senate in November.

The legislation, introduced by Sen. Robert Robbins, R-Mercer, includes fines of $5,000 to $15,000 for staging a concert "through the use of a false, deceptive or misleading affiliation, connection or association" with a musical group.

South Carolina and North Dakota have approved similar legislation. New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois lawmakers are considering versions of truth-in-music bills.

I like playing D in basketball, but I think I'd give this guy a pass on any slam dunk attempt...

Is it worth killing 18 innocent civilians to possibly get one bad guy?

Seems that Roy Blunt pissed off at least one conservative blogger in conference calls today, Dale Franks at Q and O Blog...

I would rather lick fire ants off a stick than see Roy Blunt as Majority Leader.

It's a must read. Interesting stuff, including...

Then, Rep. Blunt just outright pissed me off. He said words to the effect that, while he understood that many of us supported someone else, and he knew we'd be writing up the call later, he hoped we wouldn't write or do something that would jeopardize our ability to work together later, and since he was gonna win—already had the votes locked up, in fact—we would be dealing with him.

Seriously. Give it a read.

Oh, and by the way, this is an interesting process that the conservative bloggers put together for the candidates for House Majority Leader.

I don't have anything against Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. But I'm confused as to why he was selected to give the response to Bush's State of the Union address. He isn't a national leader. He isn't a national name. He hasn't done anything on a national scale. His political track record isn't extensive.

What was wrong with having plainspoken Jack Murtha? This better not be the Gary Locke disaster all over again... Does anyone remember what Locke had to say? Me neither...

Word on the street is that the posts are about to start going up.

Yeah, I just received a CD of Devo's music. I like them. You? If so, what is your favorite Devo song?

I've been reading the shorthand version of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's plan to restructure of the diplomatic corps. First impressions - mixed bag.

First of all, the good: More people in trouble spots, and more people in large population countries, makes sense. Caveat - it's quality, not quantity, that matters most. Second caveat - if I were China or India or Lebanon, I would also be more suspicious that the increased presence was really just an excuse to seat more spies.

Good - Requiring fluency in two foreign languages in order to move up to the senior ranks of diplomats.

Good - spread the diplomat corps around to various high population areas, rather than lump them in fortresses.

Bad - Diplomats will not be promoted into the senior ranks unless they accept assignments in dangerous posts. I guess I just don't understand this requirement. Great diplomats can prevent places from becoming dangerous posts. No reward for that. I don't know, this seems like an unnecessary requirement for advancement.