Notes

Whenever people are arguing politics, someone inevitably attempts to argue that a policy or action is okay by noting how "up-in-arms" the other side would be if the roles were reversed.

That is, the argument is not that Policy A is okay, it's that it's "not as bad as when the other side did Policy Z!"

This is dumb. It goes for all ideologies and parties--unless you have a direct 1:1 correspondence in policy, it's a stupid argument to make. It rarely has something to do with the policy, and is really just an ad hominem attack, without a specific... um, hominem.

You CAN make this argument where people are being hypocrites. Flip-flopping on issues and such is a perfectly acceptable target for criticism. But the less similar the situation--and as they become dissimilar, the drop-off is quick--the lamer your argument becomes.

(This is a vague response to the story that Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican, wants a GOP to replace him if he takes the job of Commerce Secretary in Obama's administration; I am not against him, or his demand/request, but I see Democrats saying "He's not allowed to make this demand! Can you imagine how Republicans would howl if a Dem made this demand?!"

Short answer: yes, I can imagine it. I can imagine a unicorn-powered spaceship too, but that's not really the point is it?)

.....

Chicago is a great city. A cold city, to be sure, but a pretty great town overall. I will go back.

.....

People at the Denver International Airport are not fans of the Steelers. I'm not sure they're fans of the Cardinals, but they were super jazzed when Arizona pulled ahead. And super depressed when the Steelers pulled out a win. That was a helluva 4th quarter, man. I'm glad my layover allowed me to see it.

.....

Today UPS delivered a package that was literally mailed LAST YEAR. Good work UPS. Way to keep up the quality of service in these demanding economic times.