Monday Trivia No. 58

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mexico, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

The list was derived by process of elimination. Exclusion from the list was determined by way of the national government which prevailed over the geographic area in question at the time the excluding condition existed.

The Closing Of Comments

Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to control the ongoing spam assault other than to close comments to everyone. And there seems to be no efficient way to do this.

So I’m working my way forward in time, when I can take a break from other projects, closing down comments from the archived past posts one month at a time. Currently, comments are closed through June 30, 2005 back. This date will change as I make more progress doing it. I’d love to say I’m taking the time to read through them again to compile a “Best Of Not A Potted Plant” but I don’t have time to do that and the project is already tedious enough.

If you stumble across an old post that’s been closed down, and wish to comment on it, feel free to send Will or I an e-mail, and we’ll re-open the comments on that post for you. My intention is to leave posts that are a month old or newer open for comments and from time to time go back and close posts that are more than a month old as part of the administration of the blog.

If anyone knows of a way to do this in a more efficient way than me going in by hand and closing comments one post at a time, I would be in your debt — to the tune of being willing to write a post on the topic of your choice in exchange for your assistance. UPDATE: Turns out, Erik Kain knew how to do exactly that, and did it for us. Thanks, man! Got any requests?

Occasionally, I’d Do Something Right

Back in high school, I was online-approached by a guy named Vertigo for a favor. To say that Vertigo and I didn’t get along would be an understatement. He was a manipulative cretin. A bisexual one. My thoughts and experiences on homosexuality were a bit… muddled at that point. In theory, I was already on board with gay marriage, which was a radical concept in the 90’s. In person, I did not tend to get along with the people I knew that were gay or (more commonly, at the time) bisexual. So it was very strange for Vertigo to ask something from me.

As it turned out, he had made the online acquaintance of someone named Maury who attended my school and he was wondering if I might help Maury out. I had no idea who Maury was (4,000 people attended my school). With enough description, I remembered him as “that ROTC guy who kept getting those black eyes.” As it turned out he had been outed and left the ROTC and his former rotzee acquaintances were bullying him. So what did this have to do with me? Maury lost his social network and needed a friend. Why me? Because I was heterosexual, 6’3″, 250lbs, and had friends (including a few rotzees). His perception of my and my social standing was flawed, but I probably was better than nothing. Vertigo’s theory, and I believe it was correct, was that they kept on him because he was so alone.

Our friendship didn’t exactly thrive. He was painfully quiet. We didn’t have much in common. He was invited to our Breakfast Club (anyone who wanted to come was, more-or-less) but I think the thought scared him. But we coordinated our schedules and tried to drum up conversation in the hallways. My rotzee friends knew that we knew each other. He was pressed a couple of times while we were together, but it was easier for him to ignore them when he had someone to “talk to.” They seemed to move on. Maury made some more genuine friends. He stopped showing up by my locker at the end of each and every day. We lost touch.

—-

I am not overflowed with pride when I think of the above story. I didn’t throw myself in between the bully and the bullied. I didn’t confront the rotzees I knew and demand that they tell the rotzee bullies that they needed to cut it out and have respect and tolerance. I do think I did something right there. It so happens that the thing that has come up lately reminds me of a story where I did something right. The suicide of Tyler Clemmenti reminds me of something different.

You can scan through my past and find all sorts of times when I behaved miserably. Sometimes in ways that I would actually, if not defend, then try to put into context. I’ve got nothing on JH Griffin, but nor do most people. Good for him. Good for all of those who can say, unequivocally, I never acted the jerk when I was young! I can’t say that. I can say that I got some things right and other things wrong. Sometimes I did the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing with the best of intentions. I never did what Mitt Romney did, but as Niezsche said, “Verily I have often laughed at weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.” It’s a good thing for all involved that when I was a youngun, I did not have much in the way of clawage.

Gestures In Futility, 112th Congress Edition

This is a post about separation of powers and the proper scope and exercise of Presidential authority, Congress’ ability to attempt to direct the exercise of that authority, and a strange attempt by Congress to use its power of the pursestrings to arrogate judicial powers for itself. It is not, or at least does not have to be, about same sex marriage. Article II, section 3 of the Constitution states that the President “…shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and when he (or, within our lifetimes, she) assumes office, the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Consider now the “Huelskamp Amendment,” named after its author. This is a rider on a completely unrelated piece of legislation that if ultimately passed, would bar the use of appropriated government funds in the Department of Justice for uses in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act, such as the fifteen-month-old decision of the Obama Administration to decline the opportunity defend DOMA’s constitutionality in court. This is among the most bizarre political gambits I’ve ever heard of.

Continue Reading

The Pr0no Glitch of Manitoba

Oops:

Inmates at the Milner Ridge jail were able to watch clear-as-day commercials on an explicit channel that was otherwise blocked by their satellite TV service, Justice Minister Andrew Swan said Thursday.

“Apparently, on that blocked channel, there were periodic advertisements running from 30 to 90 seconds,” Swan said.

“And immediately on becoming aware of this, the officials at Milner Ridge called the service provider and made immediate arrangements to make sure that didn’t recur.”

The jail officials only became aware of the problem during a Jan. 9 tour of the facility by Tory justice critic Kelvin Goertzen. About 10 inmates were watching hardcore programming in a common area, Goertzen said, and when a jail guard turned off the TV, they managed to turn it back on again briefly with a remote control.

A few things jumped out at me about this: First, were the inmates unaware that there were visitors? I realize that we’re not dealing with the most future-time-oriented people, but you’d think that this sort of thing might cause problems.

More broadly, though, is this really any sort of outrage? I mean, I get it that they are in prison you don’t want to make things too comfortable for them. But the sexual frustration of prison famously manifests itself in very unfortunate ways. It really seems to me that there are worse things than pornography. There are suggestions that pornography reduces rape, but even if we disbelieve that there is not much to suggest that it encourages it. It may not make much of a difference, it may alleviate the tension that causes all sorts of bad things, but humans are sexual beings and I think there have to be larger concerns than this.

One more thing. Here’s the opening paragraph:

It appears a technical glitch is to blame for a display of explicit sex in a Manitoba jail that aroused concerns by the Opposition Progressive Conservatives.

There were probably a lot of grins and groans in the newsroom over that one.

It’s About Time

Fellow Ordinary Gentleman Elias’ earlier erudite essay has indeed been OBE, exactly as he predicted. In the linked video, the President describes undertaking a personal journey of opinion not unlike mine, which was one of thinking of that civil unions were just as good to realizing that indeed they were not, that nomenclature and the social prestige associated with the word marriage matters. And it’s pleasing to see the President finally modifying his position to one which conforms more closely to my own.

While it might have been more pleasing to see this move as leading rather than following the polls, and Elias’ political calculus seems exactly right — waffling on the issue would cost Obama with his base, while this new plank of his political platform will really only upset people who are unlikely to vote for him anyway — we ought not let the imperfections blur the fact that this is good news. Continue Reading

When My License Expired, I Was No Longer Me

For once, I won’t go into the entire story, but the four day adventure of my trip back to Genesis actually got started the night before, when I determined that I was not going to be able to get my wallet in time. No wallet, no ID.

I also could not locate my passport book or passport card, which made matters worse. What I could find, however, were three expired drivers licenses (Cascadia, Estacado, and Deseret) and my expired passport.

In a sane world, that would have been enough. The point of having identification at the airport is not to make sure that you have your papers in order (unless you’re leaving the country). The point of having identification at the airport is to ascertain or validate your identity.

Your driver’s license or passport need not be current in order to do this. It could have expired yesterday. It could have a hole punched through it because you relocated. You did not cease to be who you were when you got a new license or a new passport.

Granted, if you’re talking about identification that is fifteen years old, maybe the license isn’t the best way to ascertain your identity. But two of the three licenses I had would have been valid had it not been for a relocation.

Fortunately, I found my current passport book. Mom pestered me a great deal to get it renewed last year and I owe her some gratitude because I wouldn’t have had it had she not been such a pain about it.

Anyhow, even this only got me so far. The guy at the airport demanded another form of identification after I handed him the passport. Even though the passport is every bit as valid as the driver’s license that was missing. He decided to quiz me on the contents of the passport and let me through. I got the feeling he was expecting a “thank you” for letting me fly.

I wanted to say, “Dude, I had a ticket and valid identification. You are supposed to let me fly.”

I fear that at that point, he would have found a reason not to. But seriously, if the TSA is not going to follow the list of acceptable identification, why bother having a list?. (And beyond that, what logical reason is there to fear someone with a passport compared to a driver’s license? As far as national security goes, it is much more important that we be able to have faith in the legitimacy of a passport than in the legitimacy of a driver’s license.

-{Note: This post uses Trumanverse locales. Genesis is the small town down south where Clancy and I were married and where we attended her cousin’s wedding this past weekend.}-

How To Save The Western Athletic Conference

For those of you who pay close attention to college sports apart from the big conferences, you can skip the next paragraph.

The Western Athletic Conference (WAC, pronounced “whack”) is one of the oldest top (sub)division conference. More than one in five Football Bowl Subdivision (FCS, formerly Division I-A) schools have played in the WAC at one point during its existence. However, it’s historically been a launching bad to another conference. Most of the founding members bolted the conference at once to form the Mountain West Conference, and the MWC has been incorporating WAC schools since. The last round of realignment means the likely end to the venerable conference. They were having trouble getting back up to 8 football-playing teams before, and now they’re losing five of the seven members they have to the MWC, Conference USA, and even the lowly Sun Belt Conference (generally considered the weakest of the lot). The remaining two football schoolsare Idaho and New Mexico State, and the latter is well-positioned to go back to the Sun Belt from whence it came seven or so years ago. Idaho is typically a poor performer – a relatively small school living in Boise State’s shadow. Idaho’s existence as an FBS program hangs in the balance.

So with only Idaho and New Mexico State remaining as football programs, and Boise State, Seattle University and the University of Denver as non-FB schools (Boise plays football obviously, but their membership does not include football), how does the conference survive? It probably doesn’t. But there is one intriguing possibility that could actually leave the conference stronger and more stable than it has been in a long time. Not “stronger” in the sense of performance (all hope is probably lost there), but in the sense of having an identity rather than being a temporary home for schools from Louisiana to Hawaii. East of the Mississippi lies the Mid-American Conference, which provides a good blue-print as a generally unimpressive but nonetheless stable conference with only a few of its many (13, at the moment) members angling for something better.

The first step to the plan is to start approaching a couple of state governors. This might be best left to Butch Otter, the governor of Idaho. Approach the governors of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Those three states are relevant because they have no representation in the FBS division. Montana, Montana State, and North Dakota are or will soon be in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS, formerly Division I-AA) Big Sky Conference. South Dakota, South Dakota State, and North Dakota State are in the Missouri Valley Football Conference (and the Summit League for other sports).

Montana and Montana State were approached about joining the WAC last year and declined to do so. One of the main reasons behind their decision was the perceived instability of the WAC. The other was uncertainty about rising to the level of the competition and fear of ending up where Idaho (a former Big Sky power) did, as well we the required initial investment for Montana State to meet the WAC’s standards. The arguments in favor of making the jump were financial (the FCS playoffs are expensive and being in the FCS limits income from payout games where they play the Washington Generals to a powerhouse school), logistical (FCS playoffs add weeks to the schedule and scheduling out-of-conference games at home can be tough), and most important prestige: they want to be associated with the likes of Idaho and (likely departing WAC member) Utah State rather than Eastern Washington and Weber State. Almost all of the reasons for making the transition still hold true (scheduling is less of an issue now due to Big Sky expansion), and most of the reasons against are mitigated under my plan.

The Dakota schools were never approached. They only recently made the transition from Division II, though they have succeeded in FCS (North Dakota State is the reigning champion). Their attendance makes them less attractive than they otherwise would be. But as institutions that Montana and Montana State would want to be associated with, they’re a better pick than some of the schools that are leaving. This represents a unique opportunity for the Dakota schools to make the jump to the highest subdivision without having to do the sorts of things a school has to do to make the transition. They’d be on the hook for the extra scholarships (FBS has 22 more scholarships than FCS), the Title IX compliance (adding football scholarships means adding something to women’s sports as well), and sponsoring a couple more sports, but they can probably get by without the customary stadium upgrades and such. It would require some investment, but it is an opportunity that will not come around again.

If you can bring along the two Montana schools and four Dakota schools, with Idaho, Seattle, and Denver, that makes seven football programs and ten total programs in six almost-contiguous states. That’s a very healthy conference core, which the WAC has lacked since 1996. From there you try to get New Mexico State to stick around. Due to the nature of the new conference – one of state flagship and land-grant universities – with which it fits, they might be willing to do it over the Sun Belt (which, in addition to being a weak conference, has a number of colleges of less-than-stellar reputations that are second or third tier in their own states). So you have either 7/10 or 8/11 teams (football/othersports) with seven or eight state flagships/land-grants, two urban privates, and Boise.

The last trip involves going to California. Two schools that were on the conference’s radar before are UC-Davis and Cal Poly. Both ultimately declined, in part because they had an invitation to the Big Sky Conference, which was good enough, and because they didn’t want to leave the Big West for non-football sports. The Big Sky Conference without Montana and Montana State is notably less prestigious (Montana or Montana State has won the conference title or a share of it for eighteen of the last twenty years). And the WAC could easily extend the two schools a football-only invitation (as football-playing counterparts to football-less Denver and Seattle). Once again, this is a unique opportunity for those two schools. And though they are not a good fit geographically, they are a good fit academically.

That would bring the conference to 9/10 or 10/11, full of like-minded schools that aren’t going anywhere. The village has been pillaged. The slate has been almost blanked. The conference can redefine itself as something other than the hodge-podge. The level of competition would probably be the weakest in the FBS. But that actually allows the schools to grow together without having to suffer the immediate poundings that caused Idaho such problems. But more than that, six of the schools come from states that have no college football allegiances. In Montana, they pre-empt SEC games to show Montana and Montana State play Northern This State and Eastern That. New Mexico State has all of their games televised. The Dakota schools probably could, too, in the Dakotas. This isn’t the same as having big markets, but the depth of the devotion will definitely outstrip that of most of the departing schools (Utah State has to compete with BYU for affections, Texas State with a plethora of power schools, and so on).

They would have to get waiver upon waiver from the NCAA to go forward with this, but I think under the circumstances they would have a pretty good chance of doing so. Nobody save the MWC has any reason to want the WAC dead. But more to the point, you have six senators and three governors to contend with representing three states with no representation in the FBS. They had already worked to accommodate the WAC’s troubles. This adds much more incentive to do so.