First, the campaign didn’t make the ad, and neither did the RNC.  Browne clearly needs to stick to songwriting because he’s no lawyer (and apparently, neither are his lawyers).  Suing McCain and the RNC for an OH GOP ad is like suing McDonald’s because you got a bad cheeseburger at Wendy’s - based on the theory that they all make hamburgers and therefore share in the liability.

All three of these groups are separate legal entities.  Suing one for the actions of the other is not legally supportable unless you can prove collusion, which is unlikely (and I’m not even sure that would support anything other than an FEC violation).

Second, Browne’s suit is clearly politically motivated.  You don’t sue organizations that had nothing to do with the ad unless you’re trying to make a political point.  Browne could have sued the Ohio GOP, but he knew that wouldn’t make news.  So they named the RNC and McCain as well.  This is about politics and the alleged infringement is BS.

Third, very telling about Browne’s suit is this passage:

The 59-year-old singer claims his reputation has already been damaged and is seeking more than $75,000 in damages.

Browne released “Running on Empty” — the song and an album by the same name — in 1977. According to the lawsuit, the album has sold more than 7 million copies.

So Browne is suing over a song that’s 31 years old.  He’s claiming $75,000 in damages.  It seems likely to me that Browne’s sales as a result of this little publicity ploy should result in more sales of the album/song than he has seen in years otherwise.

This isn’t about a musician who was grievously injured by the misuse of one of his songs by a politician he does not support.  It is much more likely that Browne suing McCain was more about getting his name in the paper and moving some units of an old song that was likely to remain largely forgotten otherwise.

Need further evidence that Browne’s political activism has hampered his sales, leading to his latest publicity outing?  Try this from Billboard.com

With his first four albums, Browne built a loyal following that helped him break into the mainstream with 1976’s The Pretender. During the late ’70s and early ’80s, he was at the height of his popularity, as each of his albums charted in the Top Ten. Midway through the ’80s, Browne made a series of political protest records that caused his audience to gradually shrink…

Browne hasn’t released a new album in six years, instead pursuing “intimate (read: small), acoustic shows around the globe”.

Unable to draw an audience, and unable to sell his unique brand of burned out hippy protest albums, Browne is left with only one option: strike out in a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit at a campaign that has nothing to do with your claim in a desperate attempt to get attention.

Well, Jackson, you’ve succeeded.

Jon Henke at the next right also took issue with Stoller’s claim that POWs suffer more illness than others.  What did he find?

Stoller provided no citation for his claim - and I cannot imagine what the link could be between being a former POW and getting cancer (he does not offer suggestions) - so I checked.  According to a Institute of Medicine study of WWII and Korean War POW’s, he’s wrong.

In summary, excepting psychiatric illness, this report shows little evidence of wide spread ill health among former prisoners of war compared with their non-POW veteran counterparts.

While there are some medical conditions associated with POW’s, they are largely things like joint pain and issues related to the physical duress.   These are quality-of-life, and not mortality, issues.   Otherwise, there is “little evidence of wide spread ill health among former” POW’s.

The Institute of Medicine study did except psychiatric illnesses - which, I assume consists of PTSD, readjustment to civilian life and the like - which would seem in one degree or another to most veterans of war.  I checked on that, as well.  According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, which did research specifically on the subject of “the relative cognitive status of US Navy Vietnam-era POWs”…

The few statistically significant differences between repatriated POWs and controls showed better intellectual functioning in the POWs.

Yup.  As I suspected, Matt Stoller just made that up - as he does with most of his “facts”.  There is little to support the idea that POWs suffer anymore health problems than others, and in fact, POWs seemed to be more mentally acute, rather than less.

It is very likely that McCain has cancer or some other serious illness.  There’s no reason McCain wouldn’t let reporters look at his records otherwise.  McCain is 72 years old and he was a POW, a member of a group with high rates of illness due to ill-treatment on the part of their captors.

Stoller makes the claim that McCain is hiding something despite the fact that earlier in the same post he points out that reporters were invited to look at his records - albeit with conditions.  It’s simply not true that McCain won’t let the media look at them (as Matt states before contradicting himself).  What McCain refused to do is let our ridiculous stable of yellow journalists give him a drive by colonoscopy, so to speak.  He chose not to let them pour over every minute detail looking for something they could exploit to make news.

Stoller, compared to real journalists, doesn’t actually need facts.  He just makes stuff up, or quotes what sounds like they might actually be facts without ever backing them up.  For instance:

[McCain] was a POW, a member of a group with high rates of illness due to ill-treatment on the part of their captors.

Is that true?  Sounds like it could be, but who knows.  Did he actually do any research to verify that claim?  He certainly didn’t cite a source.  Did he make it up?  It would be his style.

Further, Matt jumps clearly afield with this little bit of stupidity

Cancer is relevant to the Presidency.  Misleading the press about one’s health is relevant to the Presidency.  This is not just a dude looking for a job, he’s going to have his hand on the nuclear trigger.  Imminent death from a terminal disease kind of skews your perspective on this, you know what I’m saying?

Actually, Matt, I have no idea what your saying.  Most people that I have been close to who died after a long fight with terminal illness (three grandparents among them), had developed an incredible respect for life.  They had come to intimately understand the fragile nature of it and felt it was precious - not something to throw away.

Stoller, on the other hand, seems to imply that someone close to death from a terminal disease would be more than happy to take those around him down with them.  That’s simply not a logical argument to make if you account for the number of deathbed confessions, last minute searches for God, and people trying to reconcile themselves with the great beyond.

Yesterday I was challenged by a pair of lefty Twitter users for not denouncing Jerome Corsi, an extremist fruit cake unfortunately aligned with the GOP.  Now, anybody who has asked me about Corsi’s book has heard me decry his brand of venom.  I had not, however, posted on the topic, so somehow I was abetting Corsi.

If that’s the measure we are to use, where are the Democrats who will step up and denounce Stoller for his repeated and over-the-top, Anne Coulter-esque diatribes?  Why is the left, which was quick to challenge me, so unwilling to call out Matt Stoller and his absurd rants?

`(B) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY- The authority under paragraph (1) shall terminate on the earlier of–

`(i) the completion of the transition of the Graduate School to an entity that is non-governmental and not a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States, as determined by the Secretary; or

`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to use funds available to the Department of Agriculture and such resources of the Department as the Secretary considers appropriate (including the assignment of such employees of the Department as the Secretary considers appropriate) to assist the General Administrative Board of the Graduate School in the conversion of the Graduate School to an entity that is non-governmental and not a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States, including such privatization activities not otherwise inconsistent with law or regulation.

`(1) CEASE OPERATIONS- Not later than October 1, 2009, the Secretary of Agriculture shall cease to maintain or operate a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States to develop, administer, or provide educational training and professional development activities, including educational activities for Federal agencies, Federal employees, non-profit organizations, other entities, and members of the general public.

`(2) TRANSITION-

`(ii) September 30, 2009.’.

That’s right!  The ridiculous waste of taxpayer time that is the USDA Graduate School must become a private entity or close its doors by October of next year.

Having flaunted its tax status to engage in direct competition with schools that don’t get such breaks, while still claiming to be “non-governmental” the USDA boxed itself into a corner. Apparently someone in government realized the ridiculous contradiction in calling it an NAFI while allowing it to use its government connection to skirt laws.  So language was inserted to pull the plug on this $60 million boondoggle.

All I can say is it’s about time.  Thank you to whatever House staffer followed my gripes about this and finally had the stones to kill it.  Now the next question is, what bloated piece of bureaucratic crap do I set my sights on next?

P.S. I don’t actually believe I had anything to do with getting this killed, but I’ll be the first to pop the cork on a champagne bottle next October 1.

Update: My dear friend Anne was the first person to point out the absurd government abuse that is the USDA Graduate School.  Any part I played in in getting it closed (which was none, but ignore that) starts with her.

I finally realized what was off when I saw yet another Michael Phelps ad during the Olympic coverage.

When Mark Spitz set his record for seven Olympic golds in 1972, the Olympics were - at least as far as the United States was concerned - an amateur athletic competition.  The rules at that time specifically prohibited paid athletes from competing.  Being paid to appear in ads for wireless phone and credit card companies would have automatically disqualified athletes from competing in the games. It was simply unheard of.

In addition, Spitz was, as some commentators noticed, swimming in off the shelf swim trunks without a cap and with a big cheesy mustache.  There were no highly regimented, chemist created nutritional programs, aerodynamically designed suits, and shaved armpits.  There were just amateur swimmers who often had menial jobs to do in the midst of training.

The rest of the world began to crank out athletes in Olympic farms much the same way the Chinese now do with their gymnasts - taking small children into the program and engineering athletes from scratch.  When the US finally allowed professional athletes to compete, it forever changed the Olympics for me.

I watch professional athletes like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Keri Walsh, Misty May.  Phelps, despite the lack of a professional swimming league, falls into that same category for me because of the commercial endorsement deals that allow him to train as a full time job.

I watch them and I really miss the old Olympics.  I miss the days when the athletes were people you had never heard of who lived in near poverty to train for the games because they simply loved to compete.

While Phelps’ feat is no doubt impressive, and his record likely to stand for another four decades, I feel it should be recorded with an asterisk the way home run records are.  The fact is Mark Spitz record in 1972 is a record from another era.  It represents a completely different approach to the Olympics and, to me, a completely different level of achievement.

As a parent I find myself telling him that “you can do whatever you want to do and be whatever you want to be.”  But last night those words rang hollow.  For the first time I came face-to-face with the fact that I was perpetuating the great lie.

You see, Little Quip’s dad is 6′3″.  Mom is 5′8″.  The shortest male in my family is 6′.  The shortest person in my wife’s family is my wife.  At three years old, he is already taller than several of the Olympic gymnasts. (ok, I’m kidding, but it’s probably close).

Looking him in the eye, I didn’t have the heart to tell him he’s going to be about 12-18 inches too tall for Olympic gymnastic competition.  So I spread the lie, again.

“When you grow up, kiddo, you can be anything you want.”

To answer the unasked question, my previous favorite stop action animation was Juke-Bar.  You can view it at the National Film Board of Canada’s website.

Today was slightly less exciting.  So let me offer some tips…

1) Be prepared to be bored. The vast majority of the people that were there never got picked for a jury, so you’ll spend a lot of time sitting around.

2) Check to see if the court where you will sere has wi-fi.  Had I known they did, I would have taken my laptop and been working all morning rather than annoying my Twitter friends.  (Ok, I would have done that, too, but you get my point.

3) If they don’t have wi-fi, bring your iPod. Like I said, you’re more than likely to not see an actual jury box, so you’ll need entertainment.

Honestly, that’s about the best advice I can give you.  The number of potential jurors compared to the number of actual jurors is fairly great.  You’re less likely to end up a juror than you are to come down with malaria.  Rather than preparing for the jury, prepare for the sitting.

It’s a good thing August is slow or I might have been stuck with the black for a while longer.

At any rate…  I hope you enjoy the new look.  If you have thoughts/comments, feel free to drop me a note or throw me a comment.