O-H I-O!!!! (Apparently spelling really IS a challenge for them!)

You probably have heard about this news story from Westlake Ohio (taken from MGoBlog):

A Cleveland-area principal says he's embarrassed his students got proof of their "educaiton" on their high school diplomas.

Westlake High School officials misspelled "education" on the diplomas distributed last weekend. It's been the subject of mockery on local radio.

Now, it is no secret, or shouldn't be, that this blog is no friend of the "state" of Ohio. The reasons why are too numerous to list here. But suffice it to say, this Michigander has not gotten past the Toledo War or, The Ten Year War for that matter.

Stories like the one above make me feel vindicated in my irrational hatred of all things Ohio, Columbus, the community college in Columbus they have the balls to call a "state" university and the football team from the aforementioned community college that functions far more similarly to a halfway house from high school to the state pen, than as a beacon of amateur athletics and intercollegiate competition. (See, Maurice Clarett, Exhibit 1)

Baghdad, D.C.

The news came out today, that to counteract major violence in our capitol's 5th Police District, Mayor Adrian Fenty has signed an Executive Order allowing for a police lockdown and roadblocks of certain parts of that district, known as the Trinidad neighborhood. Read about it here and here.

There are many aspects of this that are troubling to me. First and foremost amongst them are the apparent inconsistencies with the Constitution. The Washington Post article references a similar lockdown in the Bronx in 1992 that survived legal challenges, leading the 2nd Circuit to hold that it "served an important public concern" and was "reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism to deter crime in the barricaded area." This seems more like a court applying the law to the immediate facts without any deference to constitutional standards.

The standard for pulling over a car, or "arresting" (in the most literal sense of restricting someone's movement) is reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. This principle comes from Terry v. Ohio a 1968 case, and Michigan v. Long (as applicable to vehicle "frisks") a 1983 case, which the Supreme Court still upholds as good law. Surely, Mayor Fenty and the police commissioner cannot rationally argue that the police have reasonable suspicion to stop everyone entering this neighborhood.

On top of the constitutional issues, there is also the issue of police-community relations. This is not a good way for the police to build up their trust within the community, a trust that they need to build and maintain to curb the violence and promote an atmosphere where people aren't afraid to report violence and drugs. The heavy-handed maneuver that D.C. has chosen puts an entire new dynamic into the mix. The dynamic is race-relations, power struggles and roughly analogous situation to the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Many people today are most shocked by the fact that Mayor Fenty has signed off on this program. I for one am not. Mayor's of large cities face a strong dynamic force because they are there, on the ground, facing the pressure every day. Political theories and platforms of all kinds break down when it comes to facing real world challenges. Nowhere is this truer than for a mayor of a large city, especially one with a booming violent crime rate where everyone is turning to you to fix it. And of course you can't fix it, because you can't communicate directly to the perpetrators- and even if you could, they wouldn't all listen. So you do something, anything, and you run it by your lawyers- they give you the go ahead and you run with it, because in politics, the perception that you are doing nothing is far more deadly than the perception that you are doing something unconstitutional. And voters, who are afraid for their lives, are far less likely to question actions that threaten the constitution when their lives and safety are at risk. Therefore, the cost of inaction is much higher to a politician in this instance, than say, the cost of unconstitutional action.

I am not suggesting that this common dynamic is an excuse for Mayor Fenty, but merely an explanation of the forces that drive one to such action. It is precisely because it is easier to go down this path with the heavy hand, as opposed to going in, establishing relationships and working with the community, that we need community groups and local and national legal groups to raise up a challenge to such action.

What D.C. is doing is sad, if not at all surprising. Where once our nation was pictured as the "shining city on the hill, " our capitol is now pushing the line of martial law and a police state mentality. Sure, this one step may be a ways off from that line. But it is one step in the wrong direction and our "city on the hill" is certainly not shining today.

Pound-it-out!

THIS IS AWESOME! As Slate.com points out, what is even better is the press reaction!

The presidential campaign—well, one in particular—has introduced a new greeting to the political world: the fist pound (also known as daps). Last night, we saw perhaps the most high-profile pound of all time, as Michelle and Barack Obama bumped fists on national television before he took the stage.

What’s hilarious is watching the formal, AP Stylebook-loving media trying to figure out what to call it.

In an article about Obama’s body man Reggie Love, the New York Times called Love’s preferred greeting a “

closed-fisted high-five.” Last night produced other assorted references:

“Taking a fist-pound from wife Michelle, Obama stepped to the podium Tuesday”—MTV.com

“Michelle Obama gives her husband, Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama, a knuckle-bump as a sign of support before he speaks to supporters.”—Monsters and Critics

“At 09:09:27 Central Time, Michelle Obama gave Barack Obama a pound in St. Paul, Minnesota.”—Lola New York

“I never realized how romantic and respectful and mutually appreciative and loving a frat-tastic fist bump could be. Could it be the new peck-on-the-cheek?”—The Frisky

“... Obama, who was joined on stage by his wife Michelle, with whom he shared a celebratory fist-bump.”—Reuters

“Obama, began with a loving fist to fist thumbs up with Michelle.”—Capitol Hill Blue

“Michelle is not as ‘refined’ as Obama at hiding her TRUE feelings about America—etc. Her

‘Hezbollah’ style fist-jabbing ...”—Human Events

“I loved that moment, when they touched their hands together like that.” --Commenter, bjkeefe

I just cannot wait for the Obama's to go all national television with mine and my girlfriend's favorite- the EXPLODING "fist-bump" "close-fisted high-five" "touch of our hands together like that!"

The Popular Vote

Finally, the Democratic Party has a nominee. It is a momentous occasion to have a major party nominate an African American. I am extraordinarily happy with the nomination of Barack Obama. But this is not my concern today. My concern is with the claim by the Clinton campaign that they won the popular vote. Obviously, this doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but the claim is bothering me today.

I am no mathematician but the popular vote numbers MSNBC was running at the beginning of last night showed Clinton with roughly a 3,000 vote lead in the popular vote. She then proceeded to win South Dakota by a little more than 10,000 votes. Obama then won Montana by roughly 28,000 votes, which would seem to have erased any lead that Clinton had and given it to Obama.

I listened to all of the news reports this morning, along with reading most of the stories about last night's historic events and I have not seen anyone question the Clinton claim that they won the popular vote, or the claim that Hillary made in her speech that she had won more primary votes than anyone in history.

All of these claims by the Clinton campaign are accurate, IF you use some clever math. First you have to count Michigan, but ONLY her votes in Michigan. Obama would have to get nothing from the Michigan vote. This is dubious at best. It is dubious at best to even COUNT Michigan in these numbers, yet she insists on this clever math to claim her popular vote lead. Then, you have to factor in that no vote totals were released by Iowa, Nevada, Maine or Washington (3 of 4 were won by Obama). Real Clear Politics (where most of these numbers come from) shows that if you count Michigan ONLY for Clinton with nothing for Obama and combined estimates from the above 4 caucus states, Clinton wins the popular vote 18,045,829 - 17,869,419 or 47.9% - 47.4%.

However, if you combine the estimates from the caucus states with Michigan with "uncommitted" going to Obama (which is also a problem since he did not win ALL of the "uncommitted" votes) Obama wins the popular vote 18,107,587, 48.1% - 18,045,829 47.9%. If you scrap Michigan altogether, as is probably the best measure and you don't include the caucus states, Obama wins the popular vote. Even if you include the caucus states, Obama wins the popular vote.

The ONLY way Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote is if Michigan is only counted for her. Or, if Michigan is counted for her and the caucus states are not counted at all. Surely, these numbers in no way suggest that the Clinton campaign should be running around, pounding their fists and demanding a V.P. slot, especially when any claim to winning the popular vote is clever and dubious at best.

The BIG Story

For many, the big news of today is that the Associated Press is declaring that Obama has officially gained enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination fight over Hillary. And they may be right, even if it is kind of old news. Apparently, Hillary is going to concede that Obama has the number of delegates to secure the nomination, but she is not going to concede the race or drop out. How does this make sense in a system where Hillary's campaign is on the record many times saying "delegates nominate?" It doesn't. It's stupid. And you can read about it here and here.

What I think is the big story is the Vanity Fair article on our former President Bill Clinton. I read the article yesterday (which you can find here) and was struck by the fantastic nature of the story. I know the Bill Clinton has led a life straight from a fairy tale, but this article is so fantastic that it became harder and harder to believe. And then I went back over it and noticed that there was not a single, named source. Again, I know that the Clintons are powerful and people are afraid of their retribution, but to print a scathing critique of a former President, wherein no one is willing to stand up and put their name behind it is weak.

Slate.com tries to deconstruct the Bill Clinton's critique of the article here. They fail to do so with any insight because they focus on the fact that Bill Clinton just all in all lashes out at the writer and Vanity Fair itself.

This critique, while seemingly getting the point, misses the simple point, and the simple point is this. The piece is garbage journalism befitting a tabloid writer and quite glaringly lacks the credibility one might expect from the husband of Clinton's former Press Secretary.

Disgust . . .

This is the only way I can describe my reaction to THIS story.

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained. . . .

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001.

If true, and at this point, who can honestly doubt the veracity of these reports, this is plain and simple --disgusting and gut-wrenching to see our nation actively engaging in this kind of behavior. It is shameful.

Christopher Hitchens

His Slate.com article today compares Doug Feith's tell-all with McClellan's. Here are some quick hits from the article:

(On McClellan) I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar.

Bertrand Russell's principle of evidence against interest—if the pope has doubts about Jesus, his doubts are by definition more newsworthy than the next person's—doesn't really justify the ocean of coverage in which the talentless McClellan is currently so far out of his depth. For one thing, he doesn't supply anything that can really be called evidence. For another, having not noticed any "propaganda machine" at the time he was perspiring his way through his simple job, he has a clear mercenary interest in discovering one in retrospect.

(On Feith) Without explicitly saying so, Feith makes a huge contribution to the growing case for considering the Central Intelligence Agency to be well beyond salvage. Its role as a highly politicized and bewilderingly incompetent body, disastrous enough in having left us under open skies before Sept. 11, 2001, became something more like catastrophic with the gross mishandling of Iraq. For these revelations alone, this book is well worth the acquisition. (I might add that, unlike McClellan, Feith is contributing all his earnings and royalties to charities that care for our men and women in uniform.)

I don't know Feith, but I can pay him two further compliments: When you read him on a detail with which you yourself are familiar, he is factually reliable (and it's not often that one can say that, believe me). And his prose style is easy, nonbureaucratic, dry, and sometimes amusing. If a book that was truly informative was called a "tell-all" by our media, then War and Decision would qualify. As it is, we seem to reserve that term for the work of bigmouths who have little, if anything, to impart.