I know this isn't politics, but this story mentions that LeBron James' house, currently under construction in the suburbs of Cleveland, will contain a casino.
So how does that work, exactly? I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that gambling kind of loses its excitement when it's impossible to lose any money.
Do here's a bet: $20 says that, after the casino is finished, James will have more fun seeing how much money is left after throwing handfuls of cash into the toilet and flushing it.
Analogcabin @ 2:29 PM ------------------------- The Huffington Post sent me over to an WSJ piece on some of the Democratic stalwarts from Silicon Valley defecting from the Clinton camp to Obama. The article mentions the conspicuous silence of Apple CEO Steve Jobs -- a close friend of Al Gore's who supported Bill Clinton. Another blog post, the link to which I can't find, speculates that Jobs' silence on the wildly popular Clinton / 1984 Apple ad mashup speaks more loudly than anything else. Apple is traditionally very protective of its copyright and IP. Could the company's failure to issue a C&D amount to a tacit endorsement of Obama by Jobs? Analogcabin @ 2:40 PM ------------------------- So the big news this morning is that John Edwards will continue his campaign, despite that his wife's cancer has returned. The response at Kos was "He's not dropping out or suspending. Good." Analogcabin @ 9:55 AM ------------------------- From Al Gore's tesimony to Congress on global warning, what might be the quote of the year: "If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action." Analogcabin @ 2:24 PM ------------------------- So the word on CNN is that the White House has offered Rove and Miers testimony to Congress about the US attorney firings. The catch? That it not be under oath. Analogcabin @ 1:21 PM ------------------------- Reuters is running an interesting piece about the cost and effectiveness of a number of health care plans that have been proposed, including the Bush's. It shouldn't be a big shocker to hear that the Bush plan is the least effective in terms of actually, like, covering people who are uninsured. But to take the glass is half full perspective, it is the most effective at giving tax breaks of over $1000 to people making more than $150K a year. Analogcabin @ 3:09 PM ------------------------- Sorry about my absenteeism this week. I've been busy with work, vet appointments, and having my American Idol predictions proven utterly wrong. I did want to squeeze in a minute to share some thoughts on a Chris Bowers post over at the great MyDD. Analogcabin @ 1:55 PM ------------------------- There are some interesting New Hampshire poll results over at MyDD that have Clinton at 28 and Obama at 26, well within the 4 point margin of error. Now granted that the sample size was very small and it's way early, but this is pretty grizzly news for Hillary. But what's more shocking to me is that the same poll has Bill Richardson at 2 percent, tied with Dennis Kucinich! Analogcabin @ 9:26 AM ------------------------- John Edwards scored some points with me this morning when I learned (from Kos) that he's opted out of the Nevada/Fox News Democratic debate. Not participating makes perfect sense for all of the reasons that have been outlined everywhere, but I still thinks Edwards gets credit for being the first candidate to commit to skipping it. Analogcabin @ 9:07 AM ------------------------- Analogcabin @ 2:55 PM ------------------------- And lest you forgot which side of the sexuality and poverty issues the GOP is on, here are some reminders. The first is the always exciting Newt Gingrich on Katrina, and how it's victims were too "uneducated" to "get out of the way of a hurricaine." And the second is the always delightful Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot." Analogcabin @ 9:49 AM ------------------------- As I speculated a few weeks ago, John McCain has followed Barack Obama's lead on campaign financing by pledging to accept public funding in the general should his opponent do the same. Analogcabin @ 9:35 AM ------------------------- Great post over at MyDD about some recent polling of Democratic candidates. I won't summarize, because you'll be better served reading it there. But good news if you're an Obama supporter or a Gore dreamer. Analogcabin @ 11:46 AM ------------------------- If Gore is the Democrats' Godot, then Newt is the GOP's Guffman. He's been playing a delightful little game of what Vince Vaughn so brilliantly described in Wedding Crashers as "just the tip, just for a minute, just to see how it feels" for months now, and for good reason: He's the only person who could satisfy the far right in the primaries and still stand a chance in a general, he's largely untainted by the Bush era and its many disasters, and he reminds the Limbaugh right of the good old days of the Republican Revolution in Congress. And up until now, he's been uncharacteristically even-handed with hsi potential rivals, both on the right and the left. That is until somebody at The New York Post called Rudy Giuliani "nasty." Gingrich unloaded with both barrels at Hillary, calling her "nasty" and going on at length about the Clinton political machine's mercilessness. Analogcabin @ 9:51 AM -------------------------
Permalink |
Monday, March 26, 2007
And if Steve Jobs stands with you, who dares stand against you?
UPDATED: Here is the post to which I referred. It was on The Corsair.
Permalink |
Thursday, March 22, 2007
How, I wonder, is this "good?" I mean, I can understand that Edwards supporters are glad their man is sticking with it, but isn't that a very knee-jerk, selfish reaction? Objectively, this has to weaken his candidacy. Even the most focused, single-minded candidates can get lost over the course of a campaign. And many of the strongest, most positive and loving families can be torn apart over a disease like this. And I'm just talking about Edwards the viable candidate, not Edwards the President.
Further, and I have no doubt I'll get hammered by any number of Edwardsians out there, I think this raises serious questions about his judgment. Edwards is a young man, relatively speaking. There would be no shame in pulling out of this campaign. In fact, it's arguable he could be more influential on the dialogue were he to pull out now than he would be as a candidate. But most importantly, he could drop out, focus on his wife and family, and return to run in 4, 8, or 12 years. Hell, in 16 years he'd still be younger than McCain is now.
Permalink |
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Permalink |
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Granted, I really don't know anything about politics or law, but how is testimony that isn't under oath any good to anybody? And moreover, how the hell do you get the balls to "agree" to testify, but to stipulate that it not be under oath? By insisting on that, aren't you basically just saying, "Sure I'll testify, and I hope you love bullshit"?
At this point I expect this kind of behavior from the Bush administration. But if Congress agrees to this, they should be knocked around.
Permalink |
Monday, March 19, 2007
Permalink |
Thursday, March 15, 2007
You should read it for yourself, but the thrust of the post is that Edwards should be heralded for (paraphrasing here) getting it right the first time when the press asked if he agreed with General Peter Pace's comment that homosexuality is immoral. In Bowers opinion, Edwards response makes an important contrast with Clinton's response, that she'd "leave [the morality judgment] to others to conclude," and with Obama, who responded by saying "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."
It's important to note, and Bowers does, that both Clinton and Obama issued statements of disagreement with Pace's stance that same day.
To be honest, I think this is all kind of silly. I think we're all pretty clear on where Obama and Clinton are with gay rights. I also think lauding Edwards for being right the first time on issues might not be the smartest move. He certainly didn't handle that blogger scuttlebutt with decisiveness, and we all known where he was on the war when it mattered.
Permalink |
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
I mean, Kucinich? Really? I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Richardson isn't trying to accomplish anything other than maintaining a high enough profile to get the VP nod while keeping his head down enough to avoid any real scrutiny. But still, Kucinich? Robert Scheer is the only person I'm aware of who can utter the name without laughing, and even he's been backing off recently.
Permalink |
Permalink |
Monday, March 05, 2007
Permalink |
Permalink |
And while it's looking less likely that McCain has it locked than it did a few weeks ago, this is good few a number of reasons. The first is pretty obvious: the projected spend on the 2008 election should convince everyone that public funding is the way to go. If the costs of running continue to escalate at the rate they have, those of us who aren't CEO's should forget about representation in Washington. The second is for Obama supporters: Can Obama lead? Yes he can, by example. Now that there's bipartisan support for what Obama's done, I think Hillary, Edwards, Giuliani, and Romney are going to have to agree. After all, who wants to be the last of the potential nominees to get on the right side of an issue with so much public support? And the third good thing about this is for McCain supporters, though I'm not sure there are many reading this: Could this be the first step in McCain trying to reclaim the maverick outsider status he enjoyed the first time he ran?
Permalink |
Friday, March 02, 2007
Permalink |
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The nastiness is really no surprise, given the past Newt and Hillary share. But what frightens me is the possibility that Gingrich and Hillary could wind up on the ballot in November 2008.
Permalink |
