money talk

Ryan Wilson disses overpaid NFL "stars." Priceless:

In 2004, the Texans had the third-highest total payroll in the NFL ($97.5 million), and 19 percent of it was devoted to one of the worst offensive lines in football. Carr might have had more success stacking the $12 million between him and the defense and praying that the sight of free money would at least allow him to complete a five-step drop.

ye cannot serve God and mammon

Unless you're Jay Sekulow.


[hat tip: Ed Brayton]

a class act

Got this in email from Netflix.

You are receiving this notice because you were a paid Netflix member before January 15, 2005. Under a proposed class action settlement, you may be eligible to receive a free benefit from Netflix.

A class action lawsuit entitled Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. was filed in San Francisco Superior Court (case number CGC-04-434884) on September 23, 2004. The lawsuit alleges that Netflix failed to provide "unlimited" DVD rentals and "one day delivery" as promised in its marketing materials. Netflix has denied any wrongdoing or liability. The parties have reached a settlement that they believe is in the best interests of the company and its subscribers.

Netflix will provide eligible subscribers with the benefit described below, if the settlement is approved by the Court.

* Current Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 and were a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level. For example, if you are on the 3 DVDs at-a-time program, you will be upgraded to the 4 DVDs at-a-time program for one month. There will be no price increase during the upgraded month. (If you cancel your membership after October 19, 2005 and before you receive the upgrade, you will have to rejoin to get the upgrade.)


* Former Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 but were not a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership on your choice of the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program. (If you rejoin after October 19, 2005 but before you receive the free one-month membership, you will receive a credit for the free month when it becomes available.)

These benefits will be provided after the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Your eligibility for the benefits is based on your membership status as of October 19, 2005. The full Settlement Agreement is available for review at www.netflixsettlement.com.

You have four options to respond to the proposed settlement. You have until December 28, 2005 to make your decision:

Option 1. Sign Up For The Benefit As Part Of The Settlement
To receive the benefit, you must complete the online registration process no later than February 17, 2006, at www.netflixsettlement.com. By signing up for the benefit, you waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement found at www.netflixsettlement.com).

Option 2. Do Nothing
If you do not wish to receive the benefit, do nothing. You will not receive the benefit but will remain a Class Member. You therefore waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims.

Option 3. Exclude Yourself From the Class
To exclude yourself from the class, you must mail a letter by December 28, 2005. By excluding yourself, you preserve your right to bring a lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims. However, you will not get the benefit described above.

Option 4. Make An Objection To The Settlement In Court
To object to the settlement, you must file legal papers in the San Francisco Superior Court by January 5, 2006.

To receive your benefit, you must register by February 17, 2006 as described above in Option 1. You will not receive any other reminders to register for the benefit. If you have registered for the benefit and your eligibility is confirmed, then you will be provided additional information by email following the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

After the benefit period ends, the new or upgraded level of service will continue automatically (following an email reminder) and you will be billed accordingly, unless you cancel or modify your subscription. You can cancel or modify your subscription at any time.

In addition, if the settlement is approved by the Court, Netflix will modify portions of its Terms of Use. Netflix also will refer to its Terms of Use in certain advertisements.

To get more information about the settlement and procedures, and to take options 1, 3 or 4, visit www.netflixsettlement.com.

You know what I'm gonna do? Nothing. Because it's frivolous litigation, a waste of time and money for all concerned.

So Netflix promises "unlimited" rentals. That doesn't mean "infinite" rentals--just that the only limitations are circumstantial. So they promise delivery in a day. Since they're run through the US Postal Service, you'd think people could cut a little slack.

I'm a cheap bastard, and I qualify for the settlement, but I refuse to accept compensation. I love Netflix, and I'm not about to take advantage of some ill-conceived, insultingly stupid lawsuit.

before I go

Last night, older Mercedes hardtop convertible, vanity plate.

WDFWDIR

Any clue what it means?

off to see a wizard

Tomorrow I'm heading down to the Vancouver Hilton, chaperoning a gaggle of high school students through a presentation by JL Titchener on the long-term developmental effects of early trauma. I'll have a recap the evening after.

Update: Okay, so I totally misheard the last name. It's actually Martin Teicher. Off I go.

how to tell you're preaching to the choir

Take a poll!




[update: Hewitt's own percentages are even higher.]

Alito Confirmed Without a Tussle

I was half right last time.

Alito skips the filibuster and ascends to SCOTUS relatively painlessly. Because predictions have to be bold.

how to avoid temptation

Look temptation in the eye, the most gorgeous, bluest eye that captures the glint of every star in the cosmos, the eye that can read your thoughts and speak to the depths of your innermost desires, the eye that penetrates your soul, the limpid pool of yearning and regret, the cerulean dream-orb, the azure circumference of fantasy, glistening and gleaming and glowing with seduction, radiating the passion of a soul in torment, lust, ardor, concupiscence, amour, and say "No."



[forty-fourth in a series]

what might have been

My brother commends Hugh Hewitt, staunch defender of the Grand Old Party line, for his analysis of the consequences of the Miers debacle. Hewitt soars in a balloon of hot rhetoric, its flame lighting so quickly and burning so ferociously that I am forced to hide most of my response in order to keep it from swallowing up the screen. Click "read more" to read more.

Problematic from the start
First, Hewitt revises recent history, confusing his most pressing concern with that of the electorate.

OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate.

News to me, and probably to every voter who ticked "national security" on the exit polls, that judicial confirmation pushed the GOP to victory. The supposed "central demand" in the GOP platform comes 'way down on page 77, in a mere two paragraphs.

The 2002 and 2004 Senate races weren't largely about up or down votes. Consider the race between Mel Martinez and Betty Castor in Florida, 2004. First, Martinez wins the Republican primary by branding his opponent as pro-homosexual and wishy-washy on stem cell research, leading the St. Petersburg Times to rescind its endorsement. Martinez then claims Betty Castor, Democrat, is weak on terrorism, or even a terrorist sympathizer. Martinez's legislative priorities?

· Stand resolute in winning the war on terror and supporting our troops.
· Make the tax cuts permanent.
· Fight for Florida's fair share.

You'll notice, of course, which issue is missing from the list. Martinez wins, barely.

Where the beef is
The other races, especially in 2004, are similar, as Republicans ride the national security bandwagon to success. What did fresh, hip GOP senators really care about?

Johnny Isakson, Georgia senator replacing Zell Miller in 2004.

Education, Environment, National Defense, Second Amendment, Taxes, Transportation, Veterans

David Vitter, Louisiana, replacing John Breaux in 2004.

Agriculture, The Budget, Crime and Drugs, Education, The Family, Gun Owners' Rights, Health Care, Homeland Security, National Defense, Respect for Life, Social Security, Small Business and Economic Development, Taxes, Veterans Affairs

Legislative Priorities
1. I will work to build great jobs in Louisiana by fighting political corruption that costs us jobs and by making the tax cuts permanent to encourage growth.
2. I will work to make quality health care more affordable, including lowering prescription drug costs by allowing reimportation safely from Canada.
3. I will protect the Social Security Trust Fund from ever being raided and spent on other programs.

Richard Burr, North Carolina, replacing John Edwards in 2004.

Legislative priorities
I support making recent tax relief permanent because the tax cuts have been the engine for recent economic growth.
I will work to increase access to affordable, quality health care for North Carolinians through meaningful medical liability reform so that health insurance premiums will stop skyrocketing.
I have worked to reform our intelligence agencies on the Intelligence Committee and will continue to make our Homeland more secure through rebuilding and reforming our military and CIA.

I could go on, but you get the point. Judiciary confirmation strategies, important as they are to Hugh Hewitt, were nowhere near the top concern of the newest Republicans in the Senate.

Not waving but drowning
Second, fueled by his narrow, unwarranted analysis, Hewitt sails futher toward the horizon.

Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.

Hewitt names no names, and throws some interesting adjectives out there. Instant? Maybe. Fierce? Perhaps. Sometimes false? Evidence, please. Claiming that Republicans can't fault Democrats after the Miers flare-up, Hugh assumes that hypocrisy isn't a valid political strategy, and that the damage from Miers will be long-lasting--which would be far more likely had the hearings taken place, and Miers, as all the initial data showed, would be exposed as a Constitutional lightweight. (Remarkably, Hewitt never addresses the now-infamous questionnaire, the best indication that Miers was unqualified.)

Up, up, and away
Third, Hewitt leaves history behind and heads for the rhetorical stratosphere.

The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around.

Now we're in la-la land, a happy place free the actual past. Anyone who thinks "exaggeration" and "invective" are the province of the left needs a good dose of Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage.

The foggy crystal ball
Fourth, Hewitt looks into the future, and enjoys speculation at the cost of ignoring present realities.

The next nominee... will face an instant and savage assault.... A claim of "special circumstances" justifying a filibuster will also be forthcoming. And will other nominees simply pass on the opportunity to walk out in the middle of a crossfire?

Hewitt persistently refuses to give credence to a single anti-Miers argument, instead painting a straw-man sketch of the opposition. His own observation that no senator called for her withdrawal is important. No pundit forced Miers, or Bush, to back down. Perhaps--and this seems likely--her relationship with Bush, her apparent lack of qualifications, and all the rest required too much political capital in these deficit days of the Bush presidency.

The center of the Miers opposition was National Review's blog, The Corner, and the blog ConfirmThem.com, both with sharp-tongued, witty and relentless writers. They unleashed every argument they could find, and the pack that followed them could not be stopped. Even if a senator had a mind to urge hearings and a vote, he had to feel that it would call down on him the verbal wrath of the anti-Miers zealots.

Is calling someone a "zealot" a form of invective, or perhaps exaggeration? Hewitt is so far into the pie fight that he's forgotten he's covered with whipped cream. It is hard to ignore the whiny sound, the spinelessness of the complaint that National Review was just too witty for poor Miers and hapless Bush.

Hewitt doesn't draw the obvious conclusion: either Bush or Miers is weak for folding in the face of pressure, or there was a really good reason for Miers to withdraw (other than the smokescreen about attorney-client privilege). But then Hewitt, who asked us to "trust" Bush, can't denounce him as a coward for caving to the pundits, for, ironically, Hewitt is the very sort of pundit who wants to push the president and the Senate in his own direction.

Hugh Hewitt, punditocrat
The fact is, Bush and Hewitt don't operate the same political calculus. Let's look at Hewitt's analysis of the presidential debates in 2004, and his immediate reaction to the Republican victory.

First, Hewitt's Presidential Debate #2 scorecard (the first debate, if you recall, focused mostly on the war on Iraq). When the question about Supreme Court vacancies comes up, here's how Hewitt summarizes and grades Bush:

"I'm not telling." I haven't picked anybody yet. I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. Examples: I wouldn't pick a anti-Pledge judge. Dred Scott case, which is where judges year ago said that the constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. It doesn't say that. I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. One of us will have a pick. No litmus test except how they interpret.

C, Could have been better.

All we had to ask Miers, I suppose, was whether she'd have voted to uphold Dred Scott v. Sandford. In all seriousness, though, that "C" grade--one of the few for Bush, according to Hewitt--ought to have given the pundit pause.

It didn't. In his analysis of the election, fresh off a victory, Hewitt wrote:

After a late-night flight from the west coast, and a day spent interviewing would-be law professors, I have had a chance to catch up on the news, and I see that there is a blog swarm forming around the expected assumption of the chairmanship of the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary by Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter. The opposition to Specter seems headquartered at The Corner. Many friends post at The Corner, so I paused, considered their arguments, and thought it through. On reflection, it seems to me a very bad idea to try and topple Senator Specter from what in the ordinary course of events would be his Chairmanship. I hope my colleagues on the center-right that embrace pro-life politics will reconsider....

The Chairmanship will have great power, of course, but what matters far more than the name of the Chair is resolve in insisting that the GOP majority be reflected in the Committee make-up, and that Senator Frist appoint serious pro-life members to the new vacancies....

Senator Specter has supported every judicial nominee sent forward by President Bush. More important than that, he won first the primary and then the general election in Pennsylvania, and is a man of the party and the party needs to welcome its members who hold minority views, not punish them. The prospect that Senator Specter might oppose a Bush nominee is not a happy one, but neither is it inevitable nor, given the appropriate committee make-up, fatal to the nominee's prospects....

So, fellow pro-life conservatives, we should keep our focus on the key issues: The split of the seats, the names of the new members, and reform of the rules governing judicial nominees.

I leave it to you, dear reader, to contemplate the suggestions and the ironic recommendation that The Corner back off Specter.

Following up, Hewitt had other recommendations:

Yesterday I interviewed two senators-elect, Burr and Thune, and returning House powerhouse David Dreier. My theme with all of them was whether they felt urgency. On the Senate side, this means resolving the judicial nominee impasse decisively, either with a Democratic acknowledgement that the filibusters are illegitimate, or a rule change to require up-or-down votes on the Senate floor of every nominee to emerge from the Judiciary Committee. On the House side, Social Security reform for those under 45 needs to move quickly to reality. Skittishness in either chamber would be a disaster. Political victories of the magnitude of Tuesday's require decisive follow-through or politics will earn a reputation for insincerity even greater than it already enjoys.

Hewitt was urgent. Hewitt wanted results. No one listened to Hewitt when it counted. And, given his idealistic and unrealistic perspective on the political climate, and the way the GOP has continually misled and mistreated its most loyal voters, there's good reason Hewitt's homily went unheeded. He wants saints in office, but only sinners run.

we're in

All my optimism hasn't been in vain. Friday night, Capital marched into the playoffs with a 21-7 victory over Mount Tahoma, ending the regular season with just one loss. Injured players are coming back, so Capital's line makes it a force to be reckoned with in the postseason. (Reid Haefer, in his first game back, powered for a 50-yard run that set up a crucial touchdown.)

Word has it we're in a different bracket than Olympia, which means that if we face them at all, it won't be until the championship game.

On to state.

rest and repose

Or not, as it's the first speech tournament of the year. I'll be back online later in the evening, when I'll post an analysis of Hugh Hewitt's lament.

Carry on, my wayward sons.

communicatin' with the dead

It's not so easy, especially when City Hall stands in your way. Let's jet up to Roslyn, Washington--yes, that Roslyn, the home of "Northern Exposure"--where paranormal investigators (a polite way of saying "blithering idiots") want to poke around the old cemetery.

The guvmint has other plans.

The town council voted 5 to 2 Tuesday to reject a request by Washington State Paranormal Investigations and Research for permission to check for eerie, odd and unexplained phenomena during the wee hours, when the graveyard is closed....

The research group has visited the town a few times this year. Members who said they found evidence of paranormal activity near a mine shaft and a few electronic voice phenomena at the cemetery posted an audio sample on the Web at www.wspir.com/evps-and-videos.htm....

President Darren Thompson said the group will abide by the daytime restriction but noted that many such organizations have found that paranormal activity increases at night and peaks at about 2 a.m. to 3 a.m.

"We wish we could have gotten to say, 'Come with us and see what we do,"' he said.

Ghosts apparently operate in a limited capacity, stuck by the mine shaft after hours, flitting from station to station on the AM dial in the hopes that Michael Keaton will listen in.

The WSPIR yahoos are the only "eerie and odd" part of the whole deal.


[forty-third in a series]

we'll skip frat row for now

The Uncredible Hallq takes us on a tour of Skeptic's University, home of the Arguing Anythings.

what was jesus's philosophy?

Two cups deontology with a dash of situation ethics, one tablespoon deconstruction, two quarts distributive justice, a pinch of Jeffersonian democracy, one cup chopped virtue ethics, five cans dualism, one teaspoon empiricism.

Simmer for two thousand years. Stir occasionally.



[forty-second in a series]

Miers is dead, long live Miers

Miers is undone. It's the perfect "out," and a practical guarantee that Alberto Gonzales is off the short list.

Sorry, Hugh. You fought to the end.

Under no circumstances should the nominee withdraw or the president allow this nominee to withdraw, because I think the exchanges are going to be very interesting, and very instructive.

Problem was, "instructive" meant "destructive," as anyone except the most faithful, loyal, blinkered partisan could see.

Update: Orin Kerr has it just right.

My immediate reaction is that the system worked. Harriet Miers is by all accounts a good person and a solid lawyer, but wasn't particularly well-suited for the unique environment of the Supreme Court. As I noted last week, I think the tipping point was sometime last Thusday or Friday, when it became clear on the Hill that Miers just wasn't going to be able to deliver the kind of performance at her hearings that she needed to deliver to get confirmed.

"freedom of liberties"

Ed Brayton points to Radley Balko, who points to more inanities from the pen of Harriet Miers.

"We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction. We lawyers are trained in problem-solving and we have the leadership and other opportunities available to professionals in our society. . . .

Curmudgeonly English Teacher (my other personality) groans at someone who puts a colon after "such as."

The blog is starting to look positively inspired these days.

less tar than the leading brand

Last time it was natural gas; today it was a tar smell. They, they meaning The Constructioners, were tarring the roof. The odor wafted directly into our HVAC system, which is designed to take whatever is given it and spew it directly into the classroom, be it diesel fumes, wood smoke, or chemical weapons. (The latter, at least, would give us a day off.)

(Actually, I'm not so sure.)

Word has it an expert is flying in from Brazil to look at the problem, which has gone unresolved for a couple years now. If he flew in under his own power, I'd have hope.

all your eggs in one basket case

"I knew the conservative crack-up would be entertaining; I just didn't count on the surrealism."

Matt Welch, Reason Magazine

get 'em in before the bell

Entries for the 38th edition of The Carnival Of Education are due Tuesday night, 9:00 Pacific. Send yours to owlshome [at] earthlink [dot] net.

The carnival will miraculously appear at the Education Wonks sometime Wednesday morning.

practical exercise for light English teaching

Even an easy day in the English classroom is no picnic. Teachers run the risk of cramps, muscle tears, broken bones, lost voices, fatigue, ulcers, bladder strain, bruised egos, and more. The following are a few simple exercises you, as a teacher, can perform to keep your body fit and your mind sane.

The Paper Shuffle
Place stacks of exams on desks closest to the edges of your classroom. At a sprint, race them to your desk, sit for a few seconds "grading" them, and then race them back to the corners. Repeat this until winded--usually two or three minutes.

The Home Stretch
Before leaving for school--or at school, if you, like me, live there--use this stretching exercise. First, get up, make and drink your pot of coffee. This will warm up your muscles. Next, grab hold of the refrigerator door and stretch as far into the kitchen as you can, other arm extended, as if you are coralling one student without losing your grip on another. If the door opens (i.e., you lost your grip), close it and try again. Five minutes ought to suffice.

The Bladder Buster
Expand your tiny bladder by drinking copious amounts of Pepsi, Coke, or, on your budget, a generic equivalent. Drink and drink and drink and hold it until it hurts. Try to grade essays during this time; you'll find yourself completing them far more quickly than usual. (Warning: kidney stones are no laughing matter.)

The Shouting Match
Turn the radio to Rush Limbaugh (or some other pompous windbag). Each time Rush says something stupid, offer a counterargument in a clear, strong voice, and then turn up the volume by a notch. By the time five minutes have passed, you should be shouting loud enough to wake the dead. Sleeping students will never have a chance in your class.

The Runaround
Start at your classroom. Run to the copy room to make a last-minute transparency. Run back to your room (you forgot a blank transparency). Run back to the copy room. Wait five minutes (now there's a line). Wait five minutes more (now the machine is jammed). Finally make the copy. Run back to your classroom. Test overhead. Run to Audio-Visual room (bulb is burnt out). Run back to classroom. Insert new bulb. Teach.



[I forgot to add the all important designation, forty-first in a series]