Recently in Politics Category

On the heels of a $770 billion bailout of the financial industry, and the more than $120 billion handed over to the immoral criminal pig fuckers at AIG so they can go to spas and treat themselves, Democrats are now seeking $25 billion to hand over to the auto industry. Obama's significant lead in voting in Michigan has no doubt played a part in his thinking about whether these companies should be rescued.

Where in the hell is this money coming from? My pocket. My children's college funds. Can I give you any idea how pissed off I am that I'm losing money every day in my 401k and having to give up on all sorts of things so we can get by day-to-day while we prop up failing businesses?

And this is not just a Democrat thing, though they're pushing hard for the auto industry bailout.

I guess I've got a metric shit ton of money I didn't know about?

So far these bailouts are costing $3050 per person in this country: $915bn / 300m people, or $12,200 for me because I'm the sole earner in this family. Give me the fucking $12,200. I can find a lot better uses for it.

Fuckers.

A few weeks back, after one of the debates, a pundit on CNN joked that he expected a circular firing squad to form up amongst Republicans when they lost. And it has happened.

And is it really a surprise? This race was closer than I think they expected it to be, but it was still a loss, and mostly at the hands of a messy and undisciplined campaign that seemed to be run by too many chiefs, and not by the man that sought the office of President. I think there's going to be a lot of blood letting as the Republicans figure out who they are who, really, is to blame for this November. Unfortunately, not all of the people who are responsible will be held so. Some who don't deserve to be blamed will be. And the first to get attacked in the press falls into that second group: Sarah Palin.

I am no fan of the woman. I thought her choice was a dangerous one for McCain. I realized that it would either be statistically brilliant or hugely unpopular, and I wasn't sure which it would be. I was certain it was going to be scary and entertaining and she exceeded my expectations on both accounts. I never trusted the woman. I found her proud willful ignorance disturbing. She came across as well-meaning but clueless and arrogant, and now McCain staffers are using that public image against her.

For her part, Palin has fired back saying that the statements quoted were taken out of context and has gone further to call those attacking her "cruel" and "cowardly".

And you know what, I actually believe her, and I agree with her. Seriously, I do agree with her. Furthermore I find the way she is being attacked craven. Palin did not run the McCain campaign. She didn't make the choices on how to run, where to spend time and money, or what issues to run on. She was chosen by McCain (or some GOP cognoscenti if you believe the rumors) and he anointed her the savior of his White House bid. I don't think it is her fault that they lost, or not her active fault they lost. Certainly she inspired some people to vote against the ticket, but that's not important now.

What is important now is I think they're doing themselves a huge disservice by attacking her. As much as they may have lost the campaign now, Palin will be back. She will be smarter, more polished, more well-versed, better trained, and with a better staff (it's the Bionic Candidate!). She is the future of the evangelical Christian conservative movement and those who have attacked her will probably end up losing to her in the next Republican presidential primaries in 2012. Some Democrats say they want her to run again, but I don't think they realize what they're asking for. If she were to run, and to pick a young appealing centrist as her running mate, she may win.

It's always been interesting, and a bit foolish, to me that the news media like to use the stock market as a daily barometer of the health of our country. It should be clear to people who think that the stock market is large and often seemingly irrational ecosystem with so many moving parts that it is hard to figure out what causes what fluctuation and why.

Anything more than the broadest strokes about the activity on the stock market are invariably wrong, but that has not stopped any pundit from trying to use it's churn as an indicator for why their particular view of "something" was right all along.

So, thinking about this I did some research about the stock market and historical trends related to elections and found this site.

I've taken some effort to recreate a graph they have on their site, but I highly recommend that you go to their site and look at the entire article because it's chock full of information.

The graph above represents the general rate of return for the S&P500 for every presidential election between 1950 and 2004. As you can see the general trend of the growth is upward but there is some churn. What's most interesting to me is the 0.5% average drop in the days following an election. I am willing to bet that even though the average trend for all elections displays this dip, and is part of an overall uptick in value pundits on the losing side of the election will spin this an indicator of people's pessimism and anger from the election.

And I'm saying this no matter who loses on Nov 4th.

And it's almost true...wait, what?

Well, here's what I mean. As I see it, and grossly oversimplifying here, there are three groups at play in the stock market around election time: supporters of Candidate A, supporters of Candidate B, and investors who just don't care. In the days leading up to the election as it becomes clear that Candidate A is going to win the election his supporters are more exuberant and more willing to spend money on the stock market. They think the future's bright. Also, because there's let instability, since we pretty much know who the winner is, group three invest more. When Candidate A wins, the supporters of Candidate B are in a pessimistic mood and sell off some assets because clearly this is the end of days. Group three investors (those who don't care) also sell off some of their gains from the last month's worth of investing. These two groups selling, for different reasons mind you, causes that 0.5% dip.

And that dip's not terribly significant. These days that'd be between 50 - 60 points down.

The important thing here, and what I'm trying to drive at is that it's not an indicator of the implosion of our economy, or even that Americans as a whole are unhappy at the outcome of the election. It instead reaffirms what psychologists and honest financial analysts have told us all along: the market is ruled primarily by emotions and irrational behavior.

I want to add one huge caveat to my thinking. We have several new factors in play that could throw this historical trend out of whack:

1. This is an unprecedented election. If Barack Obama does win and America has elected its first black president there's no real way to predict the reaction on Wall Street. We'd be living in the middle of history but the business economy seems mixed on Obama, so it's possible for the American public to feel elated and excited while the market sinks.


2. Tying into number one, the world is watching this election with keen interest. Many people abroad see a McCain presidency as one of continued conflict and instability and I think that his election would spur sell-offs in the global markets as well as liquidation of American assets by overseas investors. If that does occur the markets would go down in value as well.


3. We are currently in economically unstable times. Investors and the markets in general might ignore the election completely and continue to thrash about wildly on every bit of news.

Like I said, the markets are a large and complicated ecosystem. Only time will tell what will happen in the days following Nov 4th.

Sorry that I've been negligent and not posting to my blog, but as you may know, I live in the "real America" and therefore I've been busy helping a hapless conservative run their campaign, spouting off pithy vapid comments about Israel, putting up yard signs for "Obama Ayers 1995" , and counseling old women to withhold Halloween candy from children of Obama supporters.

Clearly, I'm busy, and have to work. I'm not like the socialists who live in Philadelphia and spend their days blogging and eating cheese. I have to expose the evils of that dangerous socialist, wait, not that one, this one, dammit, this one.

But I am working on the next piece about socialized medicine. I want to expand the conversation further.

I keep listening to the debates and to people around me talk, and again and again I hear self-professed conservatives talk about how they don't want Obama to win because they don't want "socialized medicine". They rarely define what they mean by "socialized medicine", only that they don't want it.

WHY?

When did "socialized medicine" become the biggest boogie man out there? And why? There are s many fundamental issues we are wrestling with in this world and things that we haven't dealt with and people are frothing at the mouth about the health care issue.

Let's assume that by "socialized medicine" they mean government-run health care, which I admit is not necessarily the best sounding idea out there. But I'd also be lying if I didn't think sometimes that it would solve a lot of problems in the world. But why does it scare people? And why doesn't it scare me?

I'm still wrestling with it.

What do you think?

I'm not so foolish to claim that there's not hate for certain groups on the liberal side. There are plenty of liberals who hold groups of Americans in disdain or contempt, but the recent displays of hate that are showing up at McCain-Palin campaign events is stark and frightening.

The Washington Post has the story:

In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

(source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html)

I'm sorry, but the description sounds exactly like a hate rally, or a cult of personality (also something we're seeing on the Democratic side), but one being built on rage and anger. And why? Where does this anger come from? Why these displays of hate? It would be one thing if the Republicans have been locked out of power for the last 8 years and unable to exact the changes they want in this country, but it has been their policies that have charted our direction as a nation. The conditions we're all living in have been their choices, their decisions, their values. So this vitriolic display is puzzling. I understand that since the "Contract With America" established by Newt Gingrich (which most of the signers did not abide by, shame on them) the GOP has worked hard to make their core voters feel as if they're perpetual victims and harness their unwarranted feelings of persecution. And it's worked, until now.

The real question is what will be the end game for the Republicans if they lose the election? Will they work harder to incense their base? And how far can they push them until someone gets hurt?

Yesterday the stock market dropped over 777 points, or about 7% because a proposed $700 billion bailout did not pass the House of Representatives. Hopefully you already know all of this and this is not the first time you're hearing about this. A lot of politicians, including our own president and his appointees have come on the news and told us that we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW to get the bailout passed. Frankly I'm happy to see the current administration twisting in the wind.

Seven years ago (too many damn sevens) the Bush administration came to us and promised us the end of the world if we did not grant him powers never before wielded by the president and overreaching authority to do what he wanted. Congress rolled over and gave him the PATRIOT Act. Five years ago Bush went before us again and asked us to give him more authority and more powers and the freedom to invade Iraq as he saw fit. We were again promised death, destruction, and the end of the American way of life if we did not immediately give him what he wanted. Congress, and this nation in general, rolled over and now we are mired in a war we should never have been in. So now we face another situation where the President (and others) are using the same grave language in an attempt to force us to swallow a trillion dollar loan to Wall Street. But somehow, the press, and Congress have found their courage and are taking the administration to task.

This correction we are facing, the instability we are facing is still less than the one day drop of 22% we faced in 1987, or the two day 13 and 12% drops seen before the Great Depression. 7% is the amount the market crashed the day the markets opened after Sept 11th. We've come back from that crash, and we will come back from this one too.

What galls me about this is two things:

1. Between 2001 and 2005 we had a round of corrupt corporations close and we were told by our President that he had "cleaned up Wall Street". Apparently not. Nothing was cleaned up. If anything, the problem was swept deeper under the rug in the hope that it would stay hidden until he was out of office. There was a possibility to nip this problem in the bud before it became a problem and institute real reforms but, AGAIN, our leaders were asleep at the switch. And now Bush wants to heap the blame on us. This is somehow all our fault.

2. These same banks that are now crawling to the government seeking relief are the same ones who were before Congress 4 years ago demanding a change to the Bankruptcy laws. They said they were being punished by borrowers trying to discharge their debt and it wasn't fair to let people skate by without paying back what they were required to. And now, NOW? Well they are before Hank Paulson and others saying they cannot manage their own money and they want a free loan from the taxpayers to cover the shortfall. It's offensive. It's ludicrous. And to further salt the wounds of ordinary Americans, these are the same banks that refused to renegotiate the mortgages of struggling borrowers starting two years ago. Their argument that somehow borrowers should have known what they were getting into does not seem to hold water when it is now the banks that are saying "We didn't know what we were getting ourselves into."

I say the banks need to be punished. I think the banks should be thankful that people have not thus far marched on them and burnt them to the ground. I am not surprised that Congress has suddenly found their will to speak out and act. They feel and hear the anger of Americans from small town to large city demanding that we hold the guilty responsible. Now is the time to act. We do not need to turn to full scale socialism, but we most certainly need to sweep the halls and high-rises clean. The corruption and rot has to be cut out of the system. And it needs to be done now.

McCain has put his campaign on hold and has canceled his debate appearance tomorrow saying that he needs to be in Washington to help broker a deal to bailout the banking industry. He made the statement that now is the time to be above political rhetoric, but clearly this is not the time to be above political stunts.

That's what this is.

It's a stunt to divert attention away from his campaign and somehow paint himself as a "can-do guy". But canceling his appearance at the debate flies in the face of everything he's been saying for months now. McCain has stated again and again that he wanted to have townhall meetings with Obama and wanted to debate the issues. Now that we're on the eve of actually having that first debate McCain wants to back down.

Yes, I can hear you say that this is an important and critical time and he needs to be available. But when that proverbial 3am call comes in, the President can't call a timeout while he deals with that one issue.

The fact that McCain won't debate shows that either he's desperate and clutching at straws, or he is completely unfit to be president.

Either way, this stunt is unacceptable and should be decried.

A lot of different people have been commenting on how much McCain has been changing his message and stands on issues as each week progresses. Perhaps that's nothing new, Obama did pretty quickly reverse his stance on offshore drilling, but it's startling how quickly the change happens.

I am not one to slight a person for rethinking their positions. Growth happens, and it is precisely this attitude of "I've made up my mind and I won't change it" that the current administration has stuck by to our clear detriment.

But...still, I can't help but think of something I heard recently on the campaign trail...

"The American Presidency is not supposed to be a journey of person discovery".

(Source - http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/choice-palin-quote-on-personal-journey.html)

Last night I had a dream that John McCain was the head of the New York Philharmonic and picked Sarah Palin to be his first violin without hearing her play. I know it's a laughable comparison, and probably a specious one at that but it stuck with my long enough for me to want to mention it again. It is unfair in a sense because it's not as if Palin's never been a leader, and so McCain presumably had some measure of her abilities before choosing her. But I also think it holds this kernel of truth in that a position of first chair in any instrument at the New York Philharmonic is important, and if the conductor just picked some random person who may or may not be talented from a large pool of applicants based on one hearing and his intuition, then people would be in an uproar, and that's just a symphony orchestra.

I think the important thing here is something I heard Paul Begala say. McCain made a decision with his "gut" and holds that up as the sign of a maverick, but we've had eight years of leadership by the gut, and not a whole hell of a lot of thinking, and it's gotten us nowhere. I don't think that that's going to change just because of the guy at the top. Furthermore, if this is the type of thinking that McCain puts into a position like this, what kind of research and thinking will he put into other key areas? I firmly believe that instinct and intuition are a key component of intelligence, and we need to be able to heed them, but they're not the only component of intelligence.

McCain is speaking and acting like a man who's only working off his gut. And that's a dangerous think for a leader of a nation as big as ours.

The media, both traditional and blogs, have been aflame about Sarah Palin since McCain picked her as his running mate last week. I promised an article about her and this is it. I know it's well after the fact, but I wanted to give myself time to think and let the initial hysteria on all sides of the aisle to die down.

There are several things that I frankly don't care about:

1. I don't care that she's a member of the NRA. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows me. I am not a gun owner, but I am a staunch supporter of people's right to bear arms. I will continue to support that right. Gun ownership is not only good for personal security, it is also vital for the protection of our fundamental liberties. That Gov. Palin supports that right is great. It's not a make or break issue for me, but I'm happy to see a candidate that feels as strongly about gun ownership rights as I do.


2. I don't care that Bristol Palin is pregnant. What happens in the Palin home is a private matter and children should not be used as pawns or targets in elections. I'm happy that Obama came out and said as much. I don't think that he personally will use the issue against them, but I know that a lot of blogs have used it already to both mock her and rally to her side. Bristol is 17 and 17-year-olds in this country make decisions without their parent's consent all the time. Now is clearly no different. Just because Bristol's mom is the governor doesn't lend her any more authority at home.


3. I don't care that her husband once belonged to a secessionist party. Spouses disagree on politics, and Todd Palin felt differently than his wife. He still might. I don't see why this is an issue. Politics is a matter of both emotions and personal philosophy, and there are valid reasons to seek answers to our political questions in independent parties. This notion of secession is not even unique to the US. It shows up all around the world. In the interests of full disclosure I would like to point out that I am a member of the Free State Project and fully support its efforts.


4. I don't care if she wore a Pat Buchanan button. It's not even clear if she wore the button or not, but I don't care. I don't even care if she voted for him. The time in question about the whole Buchanan button affair comes from when she was mayor of Wasilla and Buchanan stopped in the town for a campaign event. It'd perfectly natural for a mayor to wear a button for a candidate out of respect for them, and she might have even liked his politics at the time. This was back when Buchanan was not quite the controversial figure he is today. I think it was beyond appropriate for the Obama campaign worker in Florida to attempt to draw a link from Buchanan's seemingly pro-Nazi stance and Palin. I haven't seen or heard anything from Governor Palin which indicates she's a Nazi and I highly doubt she is


5. I don't care that Sarah Palin is a woman. I can't honestly claim to know what McCain's strategy was in picking Sarah Palin, if he even had one. What I want to do is talk about the issues in play, and her gender does not play into that. I'm not sure why everyone questions if she's even able to be a leader because she's a woman, or because she's a mother, or because she's a mother of five, ad nauseum. There have plenty of women in history that have been more than capable leaders, and there's nothing inherently gynecological that prevents her from being a great leader.

Having got all of that out of the way, here's what bothers me about Sarah Palin.

1. I don't like that she's holding herself up as a reformer when she really isn't. The McCain campaign keeps highlighting that she was opposed to Ted Steven's "bridge to nowhere", but she really wasn't. She initially supported the bridge and welcomed it's construction. Only after public opinion turned against the bridge did she have second thoughts, and when the project was canceled, she kept the federal money that'd already been given to Alaska. Furthermore, one of her first acts as the mayor of Wasilla was to hire a law firm that specialized in soliciting earmarks from Washington. In fact, in her terms as mayor, the city of Wasilla received more federal money than it ever had in its history. This is not the record of a reformer.

   On top of this, she is under investigation for trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired while he was embroiled in a bitter custody dispute. There are an abundance of abuse of power stories in politics, but when someone stands up and says "I really am different and I'm here to clean things up!" they'd better mean it.

   Lastly, a lot of pundits are saying that Palin worked magic with the budget of Alaska since she's been governor. It is honestly not hard to make the Alaska budget work when you're as flush with oil money as the state is.



2. I don't like that she's addressing the officers of our military and exhorting them to do "God's Work". This is not a Christian nation. Ours is not a Christian military, and the missions it takes out should not be considered "God's Work". Our military represents and protects the 300 million Americans who live in our nation. A secular nation. Whether or not the majority of our population claims to be Christian, we were founded to be a nation where all religions are respected. Our military must be the purest distillation of this ideal because they are the forces that must defend it.

   Taking a step back from the specific incident I mentioned, I also want to mention that I'm absolutely frustrated that Palin's pastor has preached sermons that are just as incendiary and filled with invective as those that Jeremiah Wright has preached and the media's done nothing to follow up on it. If the personal politics of Rev. Wright were so important to consider, then certainly it should be questioned when her pastor says:

   "I hate criticisms towards the President, because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."

3. I don't like that as a VP choice she comes from the largest oil-producing state in our country and her husband works for an oil company. I am not suggesting malfeasance here. Let me repeat that. I am not suggesting that there is any thing untoward or underhanded going on here. What bothers me about this is that we've got McCain collecting money hand-over-fist from the oil companies and a VP pick who is heavily invested in oil companies as the possible leaders of our nation. We badly need a plan for the future away from oil and I don't think that that kind of leadership is going to come from these two.

   Furthermore, I think her environmental policies in Alaska have been awful. Palin does not believe in global warming. She doesn't think that we need to worry about it. I don't think that being that dismissive about the environment is good leadership. It's not even being a good Christian, which Palin swears to be.



4. I don't like that she wants to end a woman's right to an abortion. I firmly believe that our bodies are ours to rule over. What we choose to do with them should be left to our choices, as long as it does not hurt another person. This includes using drugs and alcohol, consensual sex amongst adults, and abortion. While it is clearly open to debate as to whether or not aborting the fetus is killing another human being, it is the plain truth that pregnancy can be dangerous to women. Women still continue to die while pregnant and during child birth. I absolutely believe that abortion should be a last resort move, but access to it should not be cut off. That is what being pro-choice really is about. Being able to make a choice. Making abortion illegal will not end it, any more than making drugs illegal has not ended their use. Instead it will drive abortions back to the shadows, putting more women at more risk. This is a failed policy from the get go.

   While we're at it, I want to point out that Palin wants to take away a woman's right to choice but when they released their press release about Bristol Palin they said that she had made the "decision" to have the baby. Decision implies she had a choice, which is exactly what Gov. Palin wants to take away from women.

   And another point that continues to bother me. Republicans have continued to say that Bristol's pregnancy is a personal matter and should not be used for political gain by the Democrats, and then immediately spin around and say it shows her dedication to being pro-life. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that the matter's off-limits and then try to spin it.



5. I don't like that Sarah Palin is against equal rights for gays. History has been clear. There is a constant give and take: governments seek to limit the rights of minority groups, groups that are due equality under law. Apartheid, Jim Crow, sixty years ago our own government sought to prevent inter-racial couples from marrying. Today they're all clearly wrong. And yet we continue to have people, a lot of people (like Gov. Palin and John McCain), in our country and government who would tell us that it is okay to limit the rights of gay people. They say it's not only okay, they tell us it's the moral thing to do.

   I do not believe that what two consenting people (or more) do in their home is the purview of the government. Furthermore, when people enter into a relationship with each other and seek legal protections, we should make it available to them. Marriage is not solely a religious matter. It is also a civil and legal matter, and we should not deny people the rights they seek.

   And to those who say we can't allow people to be married when they're gay because of what the Bible says, I'd like to point out that in the Bible, 1 Timothy 2, it says that women are not to have a position of authority over men, so by this very verse Palin has broken the "Lord's word" by being governor.

   By the way, it was verses like that, and others, that were used to deny women positions of power around the world and to deny them the right to vote. Those people were wrong then, just as they are now about gay people.

6. I really detest how dismissive she has been about "community organizers". You know, I get that it was intended as a dig at Obama himself, and that it was political theater, but it was so despicable. It's is not just because I have donated my time to causes, and have given money to community organizations, but also because Palin claims to be a Christian and gives lip service to Jesus, but what was he, aside from the Son of God? Oh, that's right, he was a community organizer. So was Gandhi. Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr, the list goes on.

   To mock their important work smacks of elitism. Only an elitist would find work done for the community as somehow "beneath them". As if serving something larger than yourself is contemptible. Which is funny to hear coming from a party sponsoring a military man for the presidency.
   

I wrote a few days ago about where McCain was when Katrina hit, and the GOP's plans to postpone their convention because they didn't want to appear to be partying during a disaster. I said that it was a shame that they were doing this out of appearances, and not because the staffers who would be at the convention are needed elsewhere to manage what was happening in the Gulf of Mexico.

Since I wrote that I've learned that several people have canceled their plans to attend the convention in order to be on hand to help if the need arises. One person of note is Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who was a keynote speaker at the convention, and had several other events to lead as the head of the Texas delegation. Once Gustav appeared certain to hit Texas he affirmed he would stay in Texas. So I applaud him.

News has also come out that McCain and Palin are headed to Jackson, Mississippi at the invitation of Gov. Barbour to review disaster preparations and track the storm's progress.

In an interview taped on Saturday, McCain confirmed that the GOP is changing convention plans based on Gustav. He said:

"It just wouldn't be appropriate to have a festive occasion while a near tragedy or a terrible challenge is presented in the form of a natural disaster...So we're monitoring it from day to day, and I'm saying a few prayers, too."

(Source: http://www.myfoxgulfcoast.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7326767&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)

None of that jives with what I wrote about before, when he stood for a photo-op with Bush and cake to celebrate his 69th birthday and they had a laughing good time.

But in this case, McCain went, more likely on Barbour's invitation than anything else. Beyond receiving a briefing about the hurricane, it's not clear what McCain's presence offers, but at least he's not standing around with icing on his face.

In the meantime, Obama's preparing to solicit volunteers and donations from his database of supporters:

Sen. Obama gathered the pool outside after services at St. Luke's Lutheran Church. He told us that his camapaign plans to mobilize its huge e-mail list of supporters to volunteer or send money once the impact of Gustav becomes apparent and authorities know better what kind of help is needed. He said his campaign is coordinating with local authorities.

"We can activate an e-mail list of a couple million people who want to give back," he said. "I think we can get tons of volunteers to travel down there if it becomes necessary."

(Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_will_mobilize_volunteers_for_Gustav.html?showall)

That's a definite contrast in leadership.

Oh and while I'm talking about this subject, I wanted to point out one other thing:
McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, went after Obama saying:

"So he attacks us while there's a hurricane going on and John McCain suspends his convention basically. What bigger contrast can you have about putting your country first?"

...

"It's pretty for him to set politics behind his country," Davis stated. "He does it all the time. Believe me, it's not the easiest way in the world to run a campaign. But this is business as usual in McCainworld."
...

"I thought Barack Obama said the other night that everybody puts their country first," he said with a touch of sarcasm. "Really?"

(Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/McCain_chief_hits_Obama_for_playing_politics_as_Gustav_looms.html)

So other than travel to Jackson on Sunday, what else was McCain doing this weekend? Filling sandbags to shore up levies? Dialing up his rich contributors to solicit donations to help those in need after Gustav? Taking a few days rest to really get to know his VP choice? Nope, he was at a campaign even with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, amongst others. Apparently Rick Davis believes that's setting politics aside for the sake of the country.

Today is John McCain's 72nd birthday and the big news, rightly so, is his choice of Governor Palin as his running mate for the 2008 elections. (Serious Link | Not Serious Link) But I'm not ready to discuss that yet. I want to talk about something else.

Today is also the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina hitting the Gulf Coast. As it approached, it wasn't entirely known how extensive the damage was going to be, though it was recognized as one of the biggest and baddest storms seen. The National Weather Service offered strong warnings well in advance of landfall and some government officials urged a complete evacuation of area.

We all know the rest, a botched Federal response, especially by FEMA, our leaders turning down offers of help from other nations, and Bush dithered. A lot of people saw the pictures of him playing guitar for senior citizens while New Orleans drowned.

But there was something else that Bush was doing while a category 5 storm made landfall. He was attending a birthday party for John McCain:

It doesn't matter how much distance I get from the events of Katrina, every time I remember that this was taken while people were dying, I recoil in disgust. I don't want to mince words here. It's an absolute travesty that my president and a self-appointed populist "Maverick" were celebrating anything.

But why bring this up now? Three years after the fact? Two reasons:

1. McCain's running for president now, and he continues to browbeat Obama on this notion of "judgement". He claims to have better ability to lead this nation because he has better judgement. That's not what I see at all. In fact, these pictures show a criminal lack of judgement. McCain wants me to trust that he can more capably lead a country when he can't figure out that having some birthday cake with Bush as a photo-op is a bad thing? While an entire city was being washed away McCain decided to party. How is this better judgement?


2. The other reason this is important now is the Republican National Convention is scheduled to start next week, and another potentially destructive hurricane veers towards the Gulf Coast. The Republicans are speaking of postponing the convention until after Gustav has run its course but they're not doing this out of concern for the lives of the people in the region, or because so many of the Republican staffers who would be at the convention are needed to help coordinate a response but because "images of Republicans partying in Minneapolis-St. Paul could be an embarrassing reminder of the Bush administration's delayed response to Hurricane Katrina three years ago."

   See, it would appear that this time, three years later, McCain has used his "judgement", but it would seem that it is more to protect his image. And while it shows he is at least capable of learning from his mistakes, that is cold comfort to the people who are still not able to return home so many years later.

A few days after his birthday party in Arizona with the president, McCain travelled to New Orleans and said:

"Never again will a disaster of this nature be handled in the terrible and disgraceful way it's been handled."

(source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gopstorm29-2008aug29,0,1057901.story)

In fact, the LA Times article I linked to earlier notes:

There is perhaps no issue over which McCain has been more critical of the Bush administration than its handling of the 2005 storm, which the Arizona Republican has called "disgraceful."

(source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gopstorm29-2008aug29,0,1057901.story)

The real question I have is this:

Is it just the response to Katrina that was "disgusting"? Is it possible that McCain was also thinking of himself standing on that tarmac laughing with President Bush at the collapsing icing while tragedy befell America? Is it possible that McCain realizes how grotesque it really was to publicly slap backs and eat cake while the levees burst? I can only hope so. But any remorse he may have felt after the fact does not assuage my anger or frustration at him as a person, and as a 'leader'.

You have probably heard about the gaffe McCain made about how many homes he has. He couldn't remember at first, and then a staffer said "four or five" when it turns out that the actual number is seven. It's kind of a silly incident over all, but it does go a long way towards poking holes in McCain's argument that he's a man of the people. Make no mistake about it, McCain's not a man of the people. His wife's rich, and McCain has lived a very comfortable life for a long time. Frankly I don't give a shit if someone's got fourteen houses if they're going to do a good job.

But what I find outrageous is how McCain's trying to deflect the whole houses gaffe by bringing up his POW experience. Is nothing sacred?

McCain states:

"I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell without -- I didn't have a house. I didn't have a kitchen table. I didn't have a table. I didn't have a chair," he said.

"I spent those 5 1/2 years ... not because I wanted to get a house when I got out."

Wow. Is this going to be his answer to everything?

"Senator McCain, how can you stand by your assertion that you're an independent man when you've agreed with the President 95% of the time?"
"I WAS A POW!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Senator McCain, how does a gas tax holiday really save us money when bridges around the country are crumbling? Doesn't it just delay those repairs?"
"I WAS A POW!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I can't wait to see how that works with foreign leaders during tough negotiations.

Well, if the POW gambit doesn't work, he can always fall back on calling them a c**t like he called his wife in front of a bunch of reporters.

Today my wife turned and asked me "How long until someone mentions that 'Obama - Biden' looks like 'Osama Bin Laden'? And how long until they try to use it against them? Probably not long"

Not long at all, I'm sure.

So Obama generated the biggest buzz for his vice-presidential choice than I've ever seen in history, and picked Biden. There's been a lot of differing opinions about the choice. Especially because of how big the buzz was. My reaction has also been varied, in fact, it's kind of followed the stages of grieving:

1. Denial


2. Anger


3. Bargaining


4. Depression


5. Acceptance

Denial
Biden? No! It can't be Biden. This is a joke. Obama's just playing with us. He did this before, joking with the press about his pick. This is just another example. Biden's going to walk out and say "Let me introduce you to the real pick!"

Anger
Then I'm starting to think "What the fuck? It really is Biden?" I mean, Biden? Doesn't he always put his foot in his mouth? Isn't he always saying the wrong thing at the wrong time? Didn't he say some really unkind things about Obama during the early primaries? Who the hell is this Biden guy?

Bargaining
Then I'm thinking "Alright, maybe this won't be so bad. Maybe he'll be better..." And I thought that until CNN started running some of his "greatest flubs".

Depression
So I got depressed and went to bed. Seriously. I went to bed and contemplating four more years of crap rule. And my depression lasted until Obama's speech at Springfield introducing him.

Acceptance
And so I moved onto acceptance. I still can't say I'm thrilled by the choice. I floated some funny ones with friends (Obama Phelps 08 - The Dreamy Team) and some serious ones (Wesley Clark, Chuck Hagel, Jim Webb) but I always dismissed Biden as too pedestrian. But I learned a lot about Biden in the last couple of days, and I admire him more now.

I do like that he commutes every day from Wilmington to DC on the train. I like that he's committed to spending time with his family. He is combative, which is what a vice president is supposed to be. He is a smart guy, and he is generally respected. So I guess I'm okay with it. I'm not enthused about Biden yet, but I'm not upset by it anymore either.

I am hoping that Biden does Obama, and the nation, proud. I hope that Biden really is here for his kids and mine, as he said, and that together, the two candidates work to better our way of life.

Otherwise, I'm liable to start grieving all over again.

And not the kind that digs up their garden and eats their cruelty-free non-gmo organic heirloom tomatoes, but rather an NRA spy in their midsts. Two groups, CeaseFirePA and States United to Prevent Gun Violence are accusing Mary Lou McFate (nee Sapone) of working for the NRA, and are in the process of sweeping their offices for bugs. (Link) Their accusations are based on an article written in Mother Jones magazine that highlights her double identity and past actions infiltrating an animal-rights group on behalf of U.S. Surgical (now Covidien).

The Mother Jones article goes into much more detail. I suggest you read it for the details.

To me, the fascinating things about this story are:

1. She was so active in these groups for so long and held so many positions of authority. I've always wondered how someone can act for this long as a double agent without turning for the group they're spying on. I don't think I could do it. I'm too argumentative.
2. The groups she was affiliated with are trying to figure out whether or not she influenced legislative policy and aren't really sure if she did. By all accounts she was energetic in her efforts and worked hard to spread the message of gun control.
3. These groups are not secretive. Their actions, their initiatives, they're all public and available for everyone to read on the web. What was she after, if she even was a mole? Leverage on the people in leadership? It's not clear.
4. Because what they're doing does fall under the classification of "trade secrets" what she's done is apparently legal.

The NRA has refused to comment either way on this case. I actually think that that's the smartest thing for them to do. If they admit to it they look like big assholes (and the NRA doesn't usually need help in that department) but if they deny it, most people won't believe them anyway. Some people view their silence as an admission of guilt, including Mother Jones magazine, but it could just be that the NRA's lawyers have advised their media people to not comment until they're sure they won't face any liability. Who knows? Maybe the gun-control activists need someone on the inside of the NRA to tell them what's going on.

I hear there's this lady named Mary who's supposedly pretty crafty at this kind of stuff. They should hire her.

Other links:

• Pictures of May Lou Sapone/McFate

I'm not going to vote for McCain, but I've certainly seen, and felt, that he's getting short shrift in the news and on the web. So, in a spirit of togetherness I wanted to list a few facts I've found out about him. These are things you may not know, but they're all true!

• John McCain has a history of brokering lasting peace deals. As Lincoln's Undersecretary for War he worked tirelessly for three days at Appomattox to bring the Union and the Confederacy together.
• McCain has always been well-informed on new technologies. He was a beta tester for Alexander Graham Bell.
• McCain has always had the public safety in mind. He was the junior senator on the Smith Commission looking into the sinking of the Titanic.
• He's always been a leader, even at a young age. Noah said that without McCain on board the ark as Senior Animal Handler he would have been lost.

I think these facts shed a whole new light on McCain, and his record of public service. It is indeed unfortunate that the media has not looked at his distinguished history and instead focuses on his age.

MSNBC is running with a story about Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the UK, urging families there to not waste food, in part to save money, and also to help feed the hungry around the world. These words from the PM come as he's taken part in the 34th G8 Summit in Tokyo, Japan that was primarily about the global food crisis.

The interesting thing about statements from Gordon Brown, and from the other leaders at G8, is that they were fed a six-course lunch and an eight-course dinner, including increasingly rare items like caviar and salmon. The British press was quick to excoriate Brown, especially because he's stated that solving the problems of world hunger and rising food prices are priorities of his.

I don't know that it's fair to pour all of the blame on Brown. I doubt he planned the menu or had any input into it whatsoever, but I agree that it smacks of hypocrisy for the leaders of these nations to urge restraint while eating

If you're interested in more reading, Wikipedia has an in-depth article on the rising cost of food around the world. The NY Times has an article about the vanishing salmon population.

As a foodie, one of the things that I personally worry about is how best to balance the desire for great food with the overall impact on the environment and the future. The interesting thing is that people like Alice Waters, and the Slow Foods movement have made it cool to eat local and sustainable in ways that weren't a few years ago, which is great. I hope that their way of looking at things continues to spread because we're facing a terrible dichotomy in food. The decent foods, the truly good for you foods, like eggs, lean meats, produce, the non-processed foods, are the ones getting more expensive. The foods that continue to remain cheap and accessible (increasingly) to people around the world are the junk foods, the processed foods, the unhealthy foods that have contributed so much to our other "food crisis": obesity.

Saw this on another blog and wanted to share it with both my readers.

McCain has charged $500,000 of campaign expenses on his American Express Platinum card. Instead of selling some of his wife's stock to pay off the bill they're carrying the balance forward.

I find it highly ironic that McCain holds himself up as different from Bush yet is personally pursuing the same kind of fiscal policy Bush has had for the whole nation these past 8 years. How can we trust that he's not going to have the same kind of "We'll pay it off later" mentality that's gotten us so deep in the hole so far when he thinks it's fine to be that with his own money?

Heather and I just watched "Maxed Out" on Sunday and it showed how closely aligned the credit card companies are with the politicians, and how it's helped to create a culture where MBNA can help rewrite the bankruptcy laws to their benefit and no one seems to bat an eye. And this situation is no different. American Express is offering them the credit cards with a 0% interest rate. That's extremely generous, and so maybe it makes a little bit of sense to utilize the cards for financing (in his mind) because he believes he's doing the right thing. But it is still reckless and crazy behavior in my mind, and it amounts to $500,000 in uncontrolled campaign contributions from a major American credit card company. And it's not the behavior of a man who promises to clean up the budget in Washington and balance the books. This is more of the same, and it's disgusting.

In the meantime, Obama is not financing his campaign expenses through credit cards, and has managed to save money for his daughter's college fund to the tune of $250,000.

The amazing thing is that the Republicans are so quick to call Obama an elitist, to imply that he somehow is getting a free pass, and that he's not in touch with the common man. Do you think that McCain, living off of his wife's fortunes and carrying around a limitless credit card with no APR feels the pain of the average American, or the man who's carefully planning and saving for the future?

Who's the real elitist here?

First we had Ann Coulter, ANN COULTER, endorsing Hillary Clinton. I practically fell out of my chair for that one. But now I came across this clip of Rupert Murdoch, the man who owns FoxNews, all but endorsing Obama for the presidency.

Watch the whole clip. Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

All I can say is "WOW".

I was reading an article yesterday about the racism Obama campaign workers were encountering while campaigning, and something really struck me about some of the most vicious of the slurs, they were all cited as being from PA.

I'm not honestly surprised by this. I live in PA. This state is so conservative and reactionary I'm surprised that the KKK didn't mean the Obama campaign at the Philadelphia city limits to inform him he wasn't welcome. I think the thing that surprises people about PA is that the hate isn't openly visible most of the time. It's only when you talk to the people you realize "Wow, this guy hates everybody!"

What I find more interesting is that prior to the PA primaries Ed Rendell, the governor of PA, made comments that Obama was going to encounter problems in the Commonwealth because of his race. Rendell was excoriated in the press .

As a parting shot, I bring you news from another part of the country. In Marietta, GA a bar owner is selling "Obama in '08" shirts that feature Curious George. Honestly, it wouldn't have surprised me to hear this was happening in Scranton, York, or Altoona.

It's entirely possible that at some point Hillary could be running against John McCain for the office of President, and she's said some strong things about him and his policies, painting him as the wrong man for the office, the wrong man for America, just plain wrong (and I agree with her assessment) but if you listen to her quote about him, it sounds like they've got an entirely different relationship:

"When I'm President I'm going to ask him to come over to the White House, quite often, and take trips with me, because he has a perspective. I don't agree with it and I think, uh, he's the wrong person to be President at this time, but uh, we're friends and we'll remain friends."

The video clip is here:

Start around: 9:05.

Am I the only one who things it sounds like she's sleeping with John McCain? I mean that seriously. It sounds like she's having a good time with McCain. I can see it now. He's over at her house watching Grey's Anatomy with her while Bill's down "campaigning" at Hooters, they're having coffee and scones together, sharing furtive glances across the Senate floor. On Valentine's Day he sent her a box of Constitution-shaped chocolates. And I, for one, applaud them for bridging the partisan gap with their affair. Though let's be honest, McCain's policies and Hillary's policies are not that far off from each other to begin with. In fact, Ann Coulter has pledged her vote to Hillary in November. Yeah, you read that right: Ann Coulter is voting for Hillary.

Check the clip here:
http://jezebel.com/351442/ann-coulter-will-campaign-for-hillary-if-its-mccain

All of this aside, today is Primary Day in Pennsylvania, and I'm out to vote, for neither Hillary or McCain. I'm happy if they've found love in each other, but I don't want either of them in office.

Today we have two stories for state government greed:

1. First off, we have this story from California (via the Consumerist) which talks about how the State of California has been seizing assets from people's safety deposit boxes and selling them at marginal value on eBay if the owner of the box hasn't visited in as little as 3 years. To add insult to injury, any paperwork seized is shredded, so grandma's birth certificate, the deed to your house, you know, the important paperwork you put in the box to keep it safe from....destruction, is being destroyed by the State. Adding further insult? The State of California made sure that they were protected from litigation during these activities by passing a law giving them immunity.
2. Secondly, we have news from the Commonwealth of Virginia that they will begin instituting traffic fines over $3500 for residents in the name of public safety. They're calling the additional fines "Driver Responsiblity Taxes". You will get taxed for every point on your license for up to five years, up to $700 per year. The law also forbids judges from reducing the fine OR other penalities.

The rationale behind the Viriginia is supposed to be about doing something to make the roads safer. I'll agree that in Northern Virginia the traffic can be a little scary. Well, a lot scary, and people aren't respecting the existing traffic laws, so maybe this law was originally born out of an attempt to scare people into compliance. But they've morphed into a source of revenue for the State. The article I linked to talks about how the lawmakers are already budgeting their expected income from the increased fines. If this law were truly about justice, respecting the law, and making the roads safer than Virginia would have given their magistrates the ability to reduce fines as they see fit. There are times in everyone's life where speeding is appropriate. I don't have to enumerate them for you, you can think of at least a dozen scenarios where you'd be willing to let someone speed down the highway.

But instead, the lawmakers wish to provide additional money, which, while they claim it will go to maintaining the roads, will end up in other people's coffers too.

This situation is all to like the uproar amongst the alderman of Chicago who are upset that there's now a radar detector that warns motorists of traffic cameras. If the only purpose of the traffic cameras were to save lives, and people were warned ahead of time about the location of a camera, then these detectors are a good thing.

But the alderman interviewed at least had the guts to state the truth:

Revenue from the $90 fines at camera-guarded intersections "is budgeted in our annual appropriation ordinance," the alderman said. "That is why all these cameras are being installed. ... The reality is that people blow through these intersections and they are going to be caught and they are going to be fined. It has become a big revenue source, absolutely."

Which brings us back around to the actions of the State of California. They're seizing people's assets without any intention of notifying the original owners and selling WHAT IS NOT THEIR'S to generate money for their own purposes. It is not the job of the State to seize property willy-nilly and turn itself into the largest pawn shop in the world. It is not the job of the State to knowingly shred people's personal documents without concern for the people they're impacting. But they're doing it anyway. They're doing it because they can make money doing it and again, fill their coffers with ill-gotten money that they spend on pet projects, pork, and largess. The highway named after that State Senator's family? Paid for by stealing people's prized possessions. That museum built in a town of 500 people in the mountains of Northern California that no one will ever visit or care about? Paid for by breaching a sacred trust between the people and the government they established to protect them from the very actions the State is perpetrating on its citizens. It's a disgrace that this kind of thing has ever happened, but it's a perfect example of the politics of greed in this century.

Congress is poised to send an update to the hate-crime laws to the White House, which would classify crimes committed because of someone's sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity a hate crime. Bush has said he's going to veto this law because it would prevent preachers from speaking out against homosexuality.

The lunacy of this statement is just painful for me.

We call it a hate crime when someone kills a black man because he's black, but we clearly allow the KKK to march through a town insulting blacks. Because they have their 1st Amendment rights. We call it a hate crime when a Muslim is beaten in the street because of his religion, or a Sikh is beaten in the street because he is mistaken for a Muslim, and yet we preserve the rights of people to use all manner of hateful speech against Muslims.

To veto this law to preserve someone's "ability to speak out against homosexuality" is really saying "We're going to ignore the fact that there are truly hate-inspired acts against homosexuals, women, and the trans-gender".

Bush is a fool for vetoing this bill.

Worse yet, the message he sends is one that the government is not going to afford the same protections to some people, that it would to others. He's re-affirming a message his party has stated before: Homosexuals, trans-genders, and women are second-class citizens.

I've been reading the stories on the death of Captain America for a week now, and letting it settle in my stomach. To give you a run down of the events that lead to his death, Superheroes are required to register with the government and reveal their true identity. Some refuse, and become fugitives, and a full-scale civil war erupts between heroes.

Eventually the battle comes to it's climax when the leader of the anti-registration forces, Captain America, is shot on the courthouse steps and killed.

I don't read as many comics as I once did, but this still makes me sad. I am a geek after all...

But it also resonates on a different level. The Superhuman Registration Act as shown in the comic books is looked at as a thinly-veiled analog of the PATRIOT Act, and the Civil War series in general explores the very same ideological battles politicians, pundits, bloggers, and so on have been fighting since 9/11.

I've come down on the side of opposing the PATRIOT Act and other government efforts to illegally imprison citizens, and other dangerous powers the Bush White House has sought to claim its own. I believe that given unchecked power to the authorities will be a disaster. I believe it will result in all manner of horrors I cannot begin to enumerate.

I think that the editors at Marvel feel the same way, because what I read in the death of Captain America is the death of America itself. Captain America stood for Liberty and Justice for All. He was the emblem of a nation that stood for freedom. He battled Hitler, he fought terrorists, but he was never the perpetrator of evil, and he certainly would not have advocated a place like Gitmo, or supported the extraordinary renditions of people to countries known to torture. But in the comic book, as in the United States, people are trading in their freedoms for some illusion of security.

And so, as Captain America lies dying on the steps of the courthouse, America dies.

My only hope is that, as with comic book heroes, America can be reborn and restored.

Captain America is dead. Love live Captain America!

Here's my thumbnail sketch of why Libby and Rove should be sent to Gitmo (using the President's logic):

1. The CIA's operations are essential to fighting the war on terror.
2. Keeping the CIA's operations secret in the war on terror is essential.
3. Exposing an undercover CIA agent and their contacts impairs our ability to fight the war on terror, thus providing aid and comfort to our enemy; emboldening our enemy.
4. Those who provide aid to comfort to our enemy are to be considered enemy combatants.
5. All enemy combatants are to be stripped of their rights and kept at Gitmo.

So we've been watching clips from Fox News' "Half-Hour News Hour" brought to us from the jingo-istic mind of Joel Surnow. A lot of people have been complaining that it sucks, that it's not funny, that it's a vicious, mean-spirited, steaming pile of shit festooned with garland and sparkles to distract us from its inner shitty nature. I think you're all being too hard on it.

The show is funny. It's a laugh riot, even. I can really enjoy the humor of discomfort and embarrassment. Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Sacha Baron Cohen, they're all very funny at times. Which is what makes 'The Half-Hour News Hour' funny. Watching those dipshits struggle through train wreck after bloody train wreck in the vain pointless attempt to wring real laughs out of their material is awesome. Mocking people with melanoma, repeatedly calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian, bringing up Barack Obama's cocaine use every 12 seconds, well that's funny.

I just wish they'd follow the cast off the set when they race to drink themselves into oblivion so they can try to erase any memory of the shit they're doing for a paycheck because even that pathetic sight would be funnier to watch than the show.

While you're at it, enjoy this review of the show too. And this one too.

-----

And as an afterthought, I find it ironic that they're mocking Obama for his occasional cocaine use when that was Dubya's drug of choice for most of the 70's and 80's. If conservatives will give him a pass on that issue, why not Obama? Oh right, because he's black and a Democrat.

Here's a few more questions for people that are smarter than me, as I can't seem to find anyone who's able to get me an answer:

1. On the matter of Iraq, there's this debate about a non-binding resolution condemning an escalation...mildly protesting a troop build-up...saying anything about anything about something, about whether there should be a debate, about whether or not senators will ever vote for the resolution they themselves authored, ad naseum. Further, there's discussion about whether or not the Senate should use "the power of the purse" to curtail war efforts in Iraq. But what I keep wondering is: at some point, both houses passed a bill which authorized the president to go to war in Iraq in some form. Can't they just...revoke that authorization? That would effectively end all of this debate and all of this discussion. Theoretically, Congress is the only body that can declare war in the first place, so it should be a simple matter of saying "Wait, we didn't declare war, so bring the troops home". I mean, if that's what they really wanted to do. Which I don't think it is. Which isn't even what I'm sure they should do at this point...fuck...maybe I understand why they're dickering over the size and girth of their dickering.
2. The tide might already be turning on this one, thank God, but it bears asking: why don't people in power get the clue that electronic voting machines are a BAD THING? This is one piece of technology that every single geek is screaming about. If geeks fear some new technology so strongly, shouldn't it be obvious that it's got some flaws? I bet the programmers at Diebold even refuse to use the machines. I would.
3. When will people face the overwhelming evidence that the economy is not suffering from outsourcing, but is actually thriving. Time and again the numbers show that companies are able to grow and prosper while doing outsourcing. Anecdotal evidence also shows this. US unemployment was at 4.5% in December 2006. That's an awesomely low unemployment rate. Compare with Europe which has an unemployment rate of 7.5% on average. Further factor in that a lot of the baby boomers are going to start retiring in the next 5-10 years and we're going to face a serious labor shortage. Baby boomers make up 43% of the workforce in the US. The work they're doing is going to have be done by someone. We might as well work out the best ways to outsource now.
4. In a similar vein, when will our politicians and pundits recognize that there is no national solution to the question of immigration? Certainly the Constitution gives Congress and the President the ability to determine how naturalization will work and they need to have some say in the matter of immigration and how immigration affects our economy and national security, but seriously. Aren't the needs of the citizens of Texas vastly different than the needs of North Carolina or New York when it comes to this matter? Or the needs of Seattle different than the needs of Los Angeles? Some communities, some states welcome an influx of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, because they represent a boon to the local economy. Cheap immigrant labor helps businesses to grow, similar to how outsourcing works, only locally, and promotes the opening of new businesses. It's clear to me, and should be clear to others that we should unleash the States to determine some of their own immigration policy instead of jamming one down their throats like our leaders want to do now.

Neighbors of Bill and Hillary Clinton were shot Sunday night in their SUV. It's a terrible tragedy and luckily for both of them they're still alive. The interesting thing about the story for me though is not that they were shot, or that they are the Clinton's neighbors, but instead that it will only take a few seconds for the lunatics at LGF and on Rush Limbaugh to start saying that Hillary shot them both to protect some secret they knew...

Because it's apparently wicked to claim that the president lead us into war on a false pretense, but claiming that Hillary shot Vince Foster (and now her neighbors) is 'good politics'.

I obviously give a lot of thought to the state of politics, and the state of liberty in this great country and our world at large. So it should come as no surprise that I've been considering what goes into honest government. There are a ton of people that would love to make millions off of this subject. Count me in that group. If I could make millions legitimately off of peddling this subject I would. However, I don't think that there's time enough for me to build up my business in that field because we've suffered enough bad dishonest government as it is.

So while I will probably spin this into a larger article, I want to present my tenents for honest government. First, I should explain what I mean by that. I mean a government that is truly constrained by law and contract. A government that is open and fair, a government that understands its power to rule is solely derived from the will of the governed, and recognizes that at any time if the govern so desire, they can tear down and remake government as they see fit. A government with transparency. A government that does not needlessly deceive the the governed.

I'm putting these out to call for this type of government no matter where we live. I would personally like to see a world of minimal government and maximal freedoms, but even if you live in a state or country which practices socialism, you too can demand these things. They are your right as one who gives power to your government.

1. An end to two-party politics. - I know this applies mostly in the United States and within each of the 50 States, but it's important, and I'm going to explain why. Large parties, of the type Democrat or Republican, do not give the voters the full ability to vote their conscience. By opening the rolls to all political parties, no matter how extreme or strange or small you potentially allow all people to have a say.
2. An end to ear-marking and pork. - We're all paying for the price of our lawmaker's abuses. Ear-marking, the process by which money for a pet project is tacked onto another bill as a rider needs to stop. As long as politicians can funnel money to whatever they want without full and open disclosure AND complete public oversight, we're not ruled by an honest government.
3. Make legislators read the bills they vote on first. - Downsize DC already has a campaign for this. It should be a no-brainer that politicians read the bills they're asked to vote on. Politicians should not be allowed to just vote on something because someone told them it was a good idea or they didn't have time to get to it. That's how bad laws like the PATRIOT Act come to be. Make them read the laws they're trying to pass.
4. Lobbying Reform - You can expect or demand that there are no more lobbyists. It just can't happen, and shouldn't. It's important that all people affected by a bill get a chance to speak on a subject with their politician. Politicians should be required to reveal every meeting with a lobbyist, ever dollar received, if we allow it all, which I don't think we should, and reveal every perk, gift, high-five, backslap, and pinch on the ass a politician receives from a lobbyist. Period. The peddling of influence should have the bright light of day shone on it.
5. An End To Gerrymandering - When politicians redraw district lines they do so with such lewd glee it makes even the most darkest of hearts at the sex offenders jail quake. The laws originally designed to ensure that changes in population were accurately reflected in representation have been used to make it possible for a politician or party to pick and choose their voters. It's shouldn't work that way. We choose our leaders. We give them mandate and authority. They should not get the ability to pick us the voters to ensure their career forever.
6. Expanded Freedom of Information Access - The governed should have the ability to seek information from their government with little pain. There is a place for state secrets, but information about the government should be available freely, and preferably online so it's easy to access.
7. A Strong, Exuberant, and Free Press - The people have the right to be informed of what's going on at all levels of government and how it's affecting people. Only a free press (including bloggers ;) ) can really perform this action.
8. The Right to Bear Arms - I know that not all of you will agree with this final right but it is essential for the continued safeguarding of liberty. While citizens remain armed it's much harder for the government to strip rights from people or to try to quash them. An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

That's it for now. I'm very tired and worn out from the day and I'd love to write more but I'll circle back around later and get to doing that.

Rumsfeld announced his resignation today. That's one polarizing figure gone from the Bush Administration. For me it feels like Bush is saying "alright, I got the message!" with this one. Actually he said:

"I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made" [in Iraq]

Well fancy that.

Speaking of polarizing figures, a few weeks ago Karl Rove was on NPR speaking with Robert Siegel on Radio Day. During the interview Siegel asked Rove about the polls indicating a big win for Democrats on Election Day, and Rove was combative and dismissive and said "You've got your math, I've got THE MATH [which shows a Republic win]".

Imagine that. It must have been that new math he was using.

Saw in the news that Amendment E, the JAIL For Judges Amendment proposed in South Dakota was voted down by the voters in that state by a wide margin.

I didn't not anticipate that the Amendment E supporters would take failure well, and they're not. They've already screaming about voter fraud. And while any allocations of voter fraud need to be investigated for Democracy to retain its legitimacy, I don't believe it was voter fraud that killed the Amendment E initiative in South Dakota. 90% of voters voted No. Instead of fraud, I think it's got more to do with the fact that every professional group and politician and majority of bloggers stood up and said "That's an awful law!". When you get enough people saying that, the voters take notice.

This also means that Ron Branson and his merry crew of miscreants will now be on the hunt for another State in which to promote their ideas.

I'll let you know as I know.

Also notable in South Dakota was the size of the "No" vote on South Dakota's amendment that would ban all abortions outright. Way to go folks!

I'm going to bed now.but it looks like MO, MT, and VA are going to go Democrat. I know the major news orgs are calling TN for Corker, with a total count, but I thought that there was a large number of absentee ballots filed. I don't know if that's going to be a factor or not.

Hell, I am not sure I care. At this point I'm happy because I foresee great gridlock in our future.

I just hope the Democrats have enough power to check the ever-morphing ever-growing ever-consuming power lust the President's afflicted with.

Dan Rather on Comedy Central's Midterm Midtacular riffing on himself is just hysterical. Oh God, best part of the night.

The difference between the three major cable networks is stark today:

MSNBC is running just Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann and it's very subdued, almost classy. Ken Mehlman was just on MSNBC when I was flipping through and he looked like he hasn't slept in 3 days, which is probably true. I've never had a problem with Mehlman personally. He's articulate and personable, but he's very agitated and snapped at Chris Matthews. Olbermann and Matthews have been trading barbs. That's always fun, but they should just get it over with and start throwing fists.

CNN compiled a team like it's Monday Night Football. Hank Williams Jr. popped out and sang a montage with Britney Spears and the Rockettes. ARE YOU READY FOR SOME RECOUNTS????????????? I think I saw Madden in the back corner eating a hot dog. Seriously though they've got Begala, Carville, Bennett, all sorts of people out there in front of monitors shooting snappy commentary at each other and watching the results on the Big Blitzer Board. For all of the people, it's still kind of boring.

I turned on FoxNews for a minute, but the sad faces and weeping made me sad. Chris Wallace was behind Brit Hume and he was shredding a pile of documents, not sure what that's about, but he looked pale and sweaty...it was all a letdown.

So I turned to Comedy Central to watch the Midterm Midtacular, and caught the real news.

CNN's reporting George Allen is winning in Virginia. I'm not a fan of George Allen, but if the state does break hard-right, I'm not surprised. VA is a conservative state.

A lot of Republican pundits are dancing and cheering for Lamont's defeat as a clear indication that Democrats aren't going to win tonight. I don't know how that math plays out, but we'll see what happens.

I will say that Santorum's concession speech tonight was very classy and I applaud him for that.

I went with the kids and wife to vote. The process was painless, and we used the new Diebold machines which was okay, although I'm still not comfortable not getting a receipt for my vote. It's such a simple idea and one that should have been done from the start and yet here we are without receipts.

I checked the switch on the back of the machine, and it was firmly placed in the "Record Actual Vote" instead of the usual "Count Every Vote As Republican". It was annoying since the machine kept popping up a box that said "Are you sure you don't want to vote for the Republicans?"

I voted for Bob Casey.

In the choice between Bobby and Ricky it was a no-brainer for me. Ricky was too tightly wrapped around the Bush Administration and its policies. Rather than stand up for the rights of his constituents, like me, he worked purely for the Republican agenda, which I don't approve of. His continued support for the Iraq war, support for warrantless wiretaps, and all of the other failed agendas of the Bush Administration make him completely unsupportable.

Also, his equating being homosexual with screwing your dog just blows my mind.

So I voted against him.

After this upcoming Election Day, it is entirely possible that in South Dakota, there will never be a civil trial held again. That judges will rush to recuse themselves from cases they would have willingly heard months before. That child custody cases, divorce hearings, and medical malpractice cases will completely vanish, and people will suffer needlessly. It's also possible that in the years to come, in your State, in mine, across the country, the same bad law that's about to be voted on under the watchful eyes of Mount Rushmore will make it make its way onto your ballot and completely strip you of your right to have your day in court.

It's possible because of Amendment E, also known as J.A.I.L 4 Judges, and it's setting out to strip judges of their immunity to make decisions.

Assaults on the judiciary and specifically their immunity are nothing new. Pundits have been attacking all levels of the court, especially State courts and the Federal Judiciary when their views have not fallen in line with a certain ideology, normally, the prevailing conservative Christian hard-line ideology. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the entire role call at TownHall.com, et al have all issued breezy hysterical screeds about the immediate doom we will all suffer at the hands of an independent judiciary that pokes its nose where it doesn’t belong, gives rights to the people that shouldn’t have them and forcing everything from a gay lifestyle to atheism to you name it from the bench.

So someone’s decided to do something about it. That someone is Ron Branson of California, and he directs the J.A.I.L 4 Judges movement, or the “Judicial Accountability Initiative Law”. The J4J movement has been brewing for a long time, but the first practical political attempt to get its goals advanced comes in South Dakota, where on Nov. 7th, people will vote on Amendment E. Why South Dakota? Because it has lower requirements to get an initiative on a ballot than most other states, and had a willing South Dakotan to sponsor and stump for the bill. But these are not the important matters. What matters is what the movement wants to do and how. So we should first examine what Amendment E says and does, and how it relates back to J4J. But before we can get there, we should define judicial immunity, and how and why it’s important.

There’s a lot of talk around the world about the upcoming defeat of the Republicans on Election Day, and what it means. Words are being bandied about like “precriminations”, or “Speaker Nancy”. You can almost smell the nervous anticipatory sweat wafting off the pages of Daily Kos.

Most pundits and analysts have zeroed in on the Iraq boondoggle or the economy, specifically gas prices. There’s also been plenty of talk about Mark Foley, Jack Abrahmoff, Tom DeLay, etc, etc. These are all valid reasons for why people might be seeking to toss some people from office. However, few commentators outside the internet have spent any time examining what truly matters to me these days: the state and safety of our personal liberties. We live in a time, as Keith Olbermann has noted, of “exaggerated crisis”. Days from the election Republican talking heads spin desperately daring people to vote for the GOP claiming that people who vote for the Democrats or 3rd Parties are doing so under the influence of insurgents in Iraq, bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, and probably the Grinch, sitting smugly in his undisclosed location above Whoville.

Even worse, people in the US still overly fear these bogeymen, believing as some article of faith that any minute now we’re all going to die in a fireball or chemical attack. I believe as an article of faith that if anything, the fireball most likely to kill you will erupt from your grill one summer night as you attempt the perfect sear on a steak like you saw on the Food Network.

The Democrats know that people still fear these bogeymen. They know that Americans worry about these things. They’re savvy enough to know these things this year, and because they know these things, they also know their hold on power will be tenuous. They know that if they come into leadership it’s not by some landslide of electoral support, sudden voter enlightenment, or righteous moral outrage fueled by Americans sick and tired of being misled (in all senses that word can mean), but instead because in Washington they’re the “other guys”; the ones not overly smeared by all scandals or failures of leadership. They stand to gain power because they’re not quite tainted yet.

The leadership of the Democratic Party knows the slippery transient nature of the power they’re being given so they’re not going to do anything that might make them appear weak or foolish; anything that might lead to them being swept from office in a few years. Sure, they may seek to push through social and economic issues that are important to them, like minimum wage increases, changes in Medicare and Medicaid, or rolling back tax cuts. Sure they may speak of checking the power of the President, but when it comes down to the brass tacks, on matter of terrorism, and more importantly civil liberties, they’re going to quietly toe the line drawn by the Republican Party. Hell, they may even become more hawkish and reactionary than the Republicans. Why?

They’ll do this because they know that if they stray beyond that clearly-defined line, and something should happen in the US the Party is dead in the water. They will be figuratively, if not literally, radioactive, and utterly unelectable. Then the American people will elect into office a far-right Republican administration that will rule with an iron fist and leaden intolerance for all things not socially conservative.

So for me, thinking that the NSA wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the PATRIOT Act, and others are the most pressing matters of our times, I’m gaining nothing by a change in power. I’ve accepted the fact that we’re only trading in one set of nearly the same shitheads for another.

Well, it’s not entirely true. There’s one other possibility that I can see coming from all this that might make me happy: gridlock. It’s possible that neither power will have a firm grip on power, so that things in Washington will grind to a halt. Nothing will get done at all as the partisans spend more time sniping at each other across the aisle. Now, that might not be such a bad thing after all.

We all knew it was only a matter of time before the Republican pundits would start down this path (a path beaten by FoxNews misrepresenting Foley as a Democrat): Are Gay Republicans Closeted Democrats?

Obviously the Republicans can't fathom that Mark Foley could act the way he did and be a Republican, so they needed a way to pin it on Democrats. So they're trying to spin a conspiracy of secret democrats infiltrating the Republican Party and seducing pages to discredit the Republicans.

It would be funny if so many people didn't probably already believe that in the Republican party.

As I and a lot of the blogosphere has posted, FoxNews mislabelled Rep. Foley as a Democrat, several times, and then just silently removed the references rather than publically admitting their mistake. Seeing as FoxNews gets high ratings, and the viewers of the channel believe strongly in its infallibility, it's important that FoxNews publically admit their mistake.

To that length, my friend and fellow blogger Richard Harlos wrote the following letter. I encourage all of my friends to send it as well.

Unfortunately, FoxNews still does not have an ombudsman, but you can send the letter to comments@foxnews.com and newswatch@foxnews.com. Also, good to send to oreilly@foxnews.com and hannity@foxnews.com as well.

My wife and I were talking the other day:

Me: "What would you want to do if Bush somehow got to remain in office at the end of his term?"
Her: "What do you mean?"
Me: "Say there's another terrorist attack, or the war in Afghanistan or Iraq's going worse and the Congress votes some measure to keep him in office a little longer to 'get us through this rough patch'"
Her: "You mean like he faked a terrorist attack?"
Me: "I don't care if he did or Al-Qaeda legitimately did one"

- A long silence -

Her: "I'd want to move to Canada."
Me: "I was thinking that too, but what if the Canadians shut down the border and refused Americans entrance to their country? I bet a lot of Americans would head north."
Her: "I guess we'll see in the next two years what happens."

Canada's only 8 hours from here by highway, but honestly, I think if we expatriated, we'd do better to hit a place like New Zealand. I'd even consider a place like Singapore or Malaysia. It makes me sick to my stomach to even consider any of this, but I have to. Given how much Bush has changed the answer to every question asked of him to one of "national security" and "protecting Americans at all costs", which seems to include torturing people, or having them sent to other nations which will torture them, detaining American citizens forever without charge, spying on all Americans regardless of cause, and seeking extraordinary powers to circumvent Congress and the Judiciary, I can only imagine what crimes against liberty would be perpetrated by a President Bush in a period of time beyond his normal term limits where he's not beholden at all to voters. It scares the hell out of me.

Nevermind all of the other shit swirling around about Mark Foley (I'll get to it later) but I thought this deserved notice today: Fox News has decided that Mark Foley is a Democrat! Not just once, BUT TWICE! I love that they ran the line "Did Dems Ignore Foley E-Mails To Preserve Seat?".

Wow. So a Republican does something like this and his party affiliation is automagically switched. That's fabulous. So if Fox News was around in the 1960's and Kennedy was stumping for getting rid of the IRS would they have identified him as the Republican Candidate?

Again, wow.

I was listening to NPR while I sat in traffic on the Jones Falls Expressway this morning, and they had a story about some of the prisoners that Israel refuses to hand back to the Lebanese. One of the prisoners, Samir Kuntar, was accused and convicted of murdering a father and his four-year-old daughter, among others in a cross-border raid 27 years ago.

Simar's brother was on record saying that he felt that even if he believed everything the Israelis said and that even if his brother had killed both Danny Haran and his daughter Einat, 27 years was more than enough time to spend in jail for those crimes. While I can certainly appreciate someone's desire to see his family member again, I don't see how anyone can say "Yes my brother murdered a child in cold-blood in the middle of the night but he should go free now". It just boggles my mind.

In my head, if someone were to hurt one of my kids, or the children of one of my friends or family members, hell any child in cold blood, with deliberate malice are eligible for the most heinous and horrific punishments available to man. They certainly don't go free. Ever.

More information about the whole affair is also available here.

Right after 9/11 "The Onion" took on the task of finding humor in those terrible events, and they did a great job. I remember though that one headline they had on the page jumped out at me: "Tavis Smiley Announces 'There's a New Nigger In Town'". I'm immediately conditioned to not type that word, much less say it out loud, which is why I guess it was so funny. Part of humor is the shocking of the audience with the unexpected.

But as the saying goes "Many a truth is spoken in jest". Given the recent spat of slurs against South Asians, and people freaking out about South Asians on planes, it would seem that the Onion's joke was just another example of truth in jest. What slurs? Well, Hillary Clinton's joke about Mahatma Ghandi owning a gas station in St. Louis, or Joseph Biden's joke about needing an Indian accent to walk into a Dunkin Donuts or 7/11, George Allen's calling a staffer from his opponent's campaign a macaca (monkey) because the staffer's of South Indian descent, or now Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana stating that terrorists "drive taxis by day and kill at night".

I'm certainly not claiming that Indians in this country face the kind of endemic racism that blacks did during the Jim Crow era, but then, I'm not going to claim any amount of information about how much racism they're subjected to, since I'm whitey the blue-eyed devil son of Yacub.

But when I say there's a new nigger ( I feel creepy writing it ) in town, I mean how socially acceptable it's becoming to discriminate against South Asians, so much so that politicans who would never dream of standing up and saying "Barack Obama, didn't he run a soul food stand in Georgia?" or "Who is this fellow over here from my opponent's campaign...what's his name? Kunta Kinte? Welcome to America boy!" will routinely put their foot in their mouths about South Asians. Imagine the shitstorm that would blow up if Dennis Hastert went out and pulled at the corners of his eyes and said "You have to look like this to get around San Francisco these days".

But it isn't just the politicians who voice these sentimanets. Lots of people I know will say "All Indians are terroriststs" or "This software project's screwed up because it was done by a bunch of those Indians". Witness my friend Scott Manning who wants to fault Raed Jarrar as the guilty party because he wanted to wear a shirt with Arabic script on it onto a plane. Per Scott's reasoning, his act of merely wearing the shirt puts him in the wrong.

Even before 9/11 it was common for my friends to make fun of the Sikh guys who ran the 7/11 down the street from our house, but since 9/11, it seems like it's become culturally acceptable, almost...expected...

"The Onion" ended up being more right than they probably expected. Which is a shame. No group deserves to be mocked, derided, or singled out as has happened, be them South Asian, Chinese, Latino, etc.

Sarah Chayes, formerly an NPR correspondent who was reporting from Afghanistan during the US invasion, moved to Kandahar to be part of the rebuilding and revival of the country. She reported on stories like the raid on the Kandahar airport, and other such events. Turns out those raids were lies. In a recent interview on NPR's All Things Considered Ms. Chayes commented that those stories told to her by Afghani warlords were fabricated. These stories came from US handlers so they could be fed to reporters in order to make it appear that there was a groundswell Afghani rebellion against the Taliban.

That report made me wonder what really happened during the raid on the mountains of Tora Bora where Afghani warlords were supposedly fighting the forces of Bin Laden but let Bin Laden slip away.

Ms. Chayes also has some interesting things to say about how the US is giving Pakistan a free pass on training and harboring terrorists, which President Bush said we would not tolerate.

Frankly I don't know why this isn't bigger news, but it was jaw-dropping to me. I'm not shocked that the president tried to manipulate the media, but just that no one else has raised this question of what really happened in Afghanistan.

In case you haven't heard, and you might not have, Sen. George Allen, while on the campaign trail, pointed out a staffer from his opponent's campaign and called him "Makaka". The problem? The staffer is from India of Indian descent, and Makaka is a racial slur, on par with calling someone a monkey.

So basically, Sen. George Allen stood in front of voters and used an outright racial slur. What a classy guy. For more breakdown on the whole event, visit here and here.

This is not the first time George Allen's raised some ire over his actions and statements on race. More on that here.

A little old grandma in Ohio has had a licence plate for 10 years which commerates her family's tree farm, the Naplewood Tree Farm, as NWTF. Now, the Ohio DMV, using their "socially and ethically diverse" board of censors has declared her license plate obscene and wants it gone. Which of course, prompts me to say "Now what the fuck?" (Link)

I came across this article from the Attorney General of Virginia. He's speaking about the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It means that just because there are some rights listed in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean that those are our ONLY RIGHTS. This may sound academic, but consider that a lot of people speak about a right to privacy, but it's not directly outlined in the Bill of Rights. It descends from the Ninth Amendment. The right to travel, the right to work in the job they choose, the right to own a business, these all descend from the Ninth Amendment. Some, including myself, would even claim that the right to self-medicate, including with currently illicit drugs, comes from the Ninth Amendment.

Most politicians and courts say the Ninth Amendment has no power and no authority in the world today, so it's nice to see a high-ranking official, like the Attorney General of a state, to argue that it is still valid.

Chicago has passed a "Living Wage Act" which they state will help pull people out of poverty by requiring all big-box retailers operating within the city limits to pay their employees a minimum of $10/hour. Sounds great doesn't it? Especially in a place like Chicago, where prices are higher anyway!

Wrong. Wal-Mart doesn't have any stores within the city of Chicago, and the are in the process of building their first one. Now that this law has been passed, they've announced they may not build any more in the city, but instead "redirect our focus on our suburban strategy and see how we could better serve our city of Chicago residents from suburban Chicagoland" (source: Washington Post. In that same complex that Wal-Mart was being built, on the poor West Side of Chicago, another big box retailer, Menards Hardware, was going to build a store to share space with Wal-Mart. They're now announcing they may not build in Chicago after all. (source: NPR's All Things Considered - Audio Clip

Some of the residents in the area said they don't like the law because it drives the stores away. One gentleman said "A low-paying job is better than a no-paying job". How right you are sir. The alderman who sponsored the bill said that it's terrible that people can work all day and still not lift themselves out of poverty, and NO ONE likes poverty, but what they've done is say to these businesses that they're not welcome. It sounds callous and terrible, but businesses exist to make money, and if they can make the same amount of money sitting in the suburbs paying $3/hour less, they're going to do it, and take those 450 or more jobs with them.

I think it's a shame what Chicago has done. Hopefully Richard Daley will veto this bill as promised.

The Indian Blog Ban is not over. Apparently the ISPs in India sought to comply with an order issued by the government that banned several inflammatory Hindu websites ( I know I already said this but I was just reiterating it again ).

The Indian government has finally broken its silence on the ban and issued the following brief press release (text below):

The Department of Telecom (DoT) has instructed all the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country to block only the specified website/webpages on the parent website. The DoT, in its letter issued to all the ISPs has mentioned that it had come to notice that in some cases the parent website had been blocked in contravention to what was stated in its earlier order dated 13th July 2006 whereby it ordered the ISPs to block certain websites/webpages.

As such the DoT has now directed all the ISPs to strictly comply with the order dated 13th July 2006 and provide unhindered access to Internet except for the websites/webpages which have been specifically mentioned in its orders issued from time to time.

The DoT has further sought explanation from the erring ISPs as to why action be not taken against them for blocking unintended websites/webpages.

RM/AMA- 200706 Webpages blocking

I still find it amazing that a country like India, the largest democracy on Earth, filled with so many different people, languages, and religions, would seek to limit people's access to information, inflammatory or not.

Rediff and others are reporting an end to the ban on blogs in India. Apparently the ban was originally intended to prevent certain hardcore hindu sites from spreading hate, but the ISPs ended up banning all sorts of legitiate traffic as well.

Well, I hope common sense will prevail and the Indian government will realize that the freest of speech is the best kind of speech and make some speech illegal because it upsets some people accomplishes nothing.

Bush hasn't used a veto in the almost 6 years he's been in office, until now. Bush has vetoed the bill that would allow federal funding for research on stem cells derived from frozen embryos that are going to be discarded anyway.

The thing about this that absolutely frustrates me is that this action, this veto, was done in the name of protecting life, done out of a concern for the sanctity of life. But it's a sanctimonious pile of shit.

Those who claim to be protecting life through these actions are more interested in protecting the potential of life rather than lives that exist today. That's why the nascent potential life of an embryo is more important than the lives of people who are alive and suffering now but could benefit from stem cell research. That's why protecting the potential future lives of children is used to prevent people who are suffering from using things like medical marijuana. That's why they fought so vigorously to keep Terri Schiavo alive, because there was a potential that she was alive, rather than pulling the plug like most every doctor recommended and letting those who were suffering around her move on.

I could berate you with personal stories of people suffering and in pain in my own family that could benefit from stem cell therapies, but is it going to do any good? Those of you, both of you, who opposed this bill need to look into your hearts and decide why it is not important to help the millions of people in this country alive today who need help who you're arrayed against.

The president's foolhardy decision is a decision which will sentence millions of people living today and in the future to painful and needless deaths. Sanctity of life? What sanctity of life?

In an effort to combat crime, amongst other noble causes, the mayor of Hazleton, PA, Lou Barletta, sought passage of a city ordinance that would make all city documents be printed in English only, fine landlords renting to illegal aliens, revoke city licenses from companies hiring illegal aliens, and so on.

Barletta, whose name smacks distinctly of an Italian immigrant, said he had to wear a bullet-proof vest while voting in fear of those murderous mobs of immigrants that this law will suddenly banish into the coal-ridden hinterlands where they may scratch at the burnt Earth like Lot in the Bible.

Most interesting to me was the quote:
"What you see here tonight, really, is a city that wants to take back what America has given it," Barletta said.

(Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203513,00.html)

That's funny, because I think that the part of the land you're living on was sold from one man who didn't own it to William Penn, and the original settlers in the area fought the local Indian tribes to hold on to it. Your family, my family, every family that settled in Hazleton were immigrants, and I'm sure a lot of them did not show up legally.

And fighting immigration like this is not going to lower crime. To say that all crime is because of the immigrant population and that suddenly printing all the city documents in only English will make everything better is just silly.

Here's an idea. Why don't you guys try engaging the immigrant populations? Empower the civic leaders amongst the immigrants, work with their churches and business leaders, and make them a part of the community. By doing that they help you keep crime lower, help you find the troublemakers, and make sure that the people on the fringes, like the people who can't speak English, don't fall through the cracks of society.

Laws like this do nothing to help anyone.

Sepia Mutiny wants to know why there have been so few stories about the railway bombings in India.

The problem, as Kevin Drum states, is that most Americans don't find it that interesting. Even the bombings in London and Madrid didn't spark much interest, except for those hawks who used it as further proof that islamists were expanding their war against, well, everyone they don't like, which includes the West, Africans, and all brands of Muslims that don't fit their tiny world-view. So a bombing in India, which to most Americans is a galaxy away seems, like the country, foreign.

Beyond that, the blogs of the left, like DailyKos, Eschaton, et al, will not give the bombings in Mumbai much screen time because it's another example of terror in the world that their political opponents can use to advocate more US military action. I don't think they're working to cover it up so much as just quietly turn their heads and hope that the good people of India will deal with it on their own.

All I have to say is that I'm glad we're getting closer to election day because not only are we finding more and more terrorists, but the White House has suddenly find a way to shrink the budget deficit.

It's like the approach of November is a magical time in Washington where solutions suddenly appear out of thin air.

*waves hands*MAGGGGIIIICCCCCC*waves hands*

All I have to say is that I sure am glad that it's getting closer and closer to election time because the Dept of Homeland Frivolity and the FBI are finally getting around to catching some terrorists.

I have talked about the music of RX before, so I was excited to see him branch out with a video. Here he is giving us Dubya singing "Sunday, Bloody Sunday"

The General has a good summation of a case in Delaware where a Jewish family was run out of a town in Southern Delaware when they expressed discomfort with the amount of Christian theology mixed into the public school district functions.

The tolerance for others went as far as people in the area to call the local radio station telling them to convert to Christianity or leave the area, and people to say that the KKK was coming after them.

These are the times I live in?

Of course, the thing that strikes me about all of this is that Jesus himself was a Jew. He kept kosher, he celebrated Passover, he was a practicing Jew. To attack Jewish people for what they believe is to attack God's chosen people. Never mind the fact that in this country we are supposed to have freedom of religion and freedom from religious persecution, and that we all have basic human rights which include not threatening people for what they believe.

Again, these are the times I live in?

Pete King, a Congressman from New York, would like the Justice Department to charge the New York Times with treason for reporting about the US tracking international monetary transfers through SWIFT. He claims it's treasonous. Well Pete, I was wondering if you'd like to also throw the books at some other people that have given "aid and comfort to our enemies", such as:

• Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush when they held back our troops at Tora Bora and let bin Laden get away?


• Alberto Gonzalez, who helped craft the memos that became the basis for the torturing done at Abu Graib and Gitmo. I can't think of any single act that's given more aid to our enemies in terms of their recruitment abilities.


• Scooter Libby and his boss Shooter Cheney, who by outing a CIA agent put her and all of her contacts at risk, and hurt our intelligence services abroad, giving both aid and comfort to our enemies.

I think we should start there, because those cases are much more clear-cut examples of treason, and then maybe we'll get around to trying the New York Times.

Last year, Katrina was explained by some as the wrath of God raining down an city known for it's debauchery; a physical example of God's displeasure for all of the naked gay socialist pro-feminist orgies they're apparently having down there.

If that's the case, then what's going on in DC? Maybe God's been 'out' when Bush calls him on the Jesus-phone lately:

"Yes, Hello?"
"Are you there God? It's me, Dubya."
"Uhmmm, God's not here right now. He had to step out for a minute."
"Can I leave him a message?"
"Really, you should just stop calling here. You've left three messages this week already. If he wanted to talk to you, he would have by now."
*click*

But I bet old Pat and Jerry (not-so-lovable purveyors of white fundamentalist hatred, not to be confused with Ben and Jerry) will somehow spin this into a message of "God's not happy you haven't locked the homos and Democrats into concentration camps yet".

While I won't claim that the Zarqawi's death was motivated by timing, I do find it suspicious that many Republicans in Congress are faced with tough races and the possibility of being sent home that we suddenly have 7 angry black men in Miami arrested for planning terrorism. They were actually arrested because an FBI informant went to them and asked them to take an Al-Qaeda oath. There are already questions about entrapment on the part of the Justice Department.

Ruby Ridge already stands as a great example of government entrapment, but certainly not the only example. And during the last election cycle the DHS candy-colored alert system crept mysteriously to orange until RIGHT AFTER the election.

Certainly we have homegrown terrorists (the E.L.F., the A.L.F., the KKK, neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, etc), and the it's probable that radicalized members of the already radical 5-percenters could twist their version of Islam further to find an excuse to start killing people, but I still find the timing very suspicious.

Given how inept these guys seem, and how there are questions about whether these guys actually even visited the Sears Tower in Chicago, I'm even further skeptical. The final nail in the coffin, however, is how ALL of the networks on the morning of the bust interviewed a member of the group, Seas of David, but he wasn't one of the ones arrested. If these guys are as big of a threat as is described, why let him go?

Ann Coulter, or as she's known in most of the world, Karl Rove's Pet Tranny, is apparently getting even more desperate for attention. She's aware now that we've stopped giving her creedence and are just letting her forth in the corner like a soiled 3 year old in full trantrumal meltdown. The difference is that the 3 year old calms down after a few and is lovable. Anyway, on her own page Ann states:

Second, let's pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist.

My book makes a stark assertion: Liberalism is a godless religion. Hello! Anyone there? I've leapt beyond calling you traitors and am now calling you GODLESS. Apparently, everybody's cool with that. The fact that liberals are godless is not even a controversial point anymore.

No Ann, it's not even controversial, or worth discussing. You've grown shrill and hysterical. I look forward to the day I see you walking down the streets of D.C. pushing a shopping cart full of your unpurchased books and eating leftovers out of the dumpster behind the DNC office.

ps - Ann Coulter's really a man. Pass it on.

Ann CoulterAnn CoulterAnn Coulter

Today is Juneteenth, a day celebrated in some parts of the world, including our own United States, as the day that slaves in Galveston, TX were freed from slavery by Union Troops in 1865.

On the radio this morning, local NPR station, there was talk that people in Philadelphia would be reading the Emancipation Proclamation, which they say freed the slaves. I sigh every time I hear this because it didn't free the slaves. Rather, it freed the slaves in the Confederate States, but allowed slave owners in the Union States of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland to keep slaves. It also allowed slaveowners in Union-controlled New Orleans to keep their slaves, as well as those western counties in Virginia that had seceded from the rest of the state with the intention of becoming West Virginia.

Slaves were not officially free across the country until the 13th Amendment, which was not passed until the end of 1865. I hate to sound like I'm pissing on Juneteenth, or freedom for slaves, but I want to be true to history and I wish we'd stop teaching kids in school that the Emancipation Proclamation had anything to do with really ending slavery.

Lincoln had implemented it as a war-time measure, intended to break the back of the Confederate armies, which were depending on slaves to do the labor of feeding, clothing, and arming the soldiers. As a commander in Lincoln's position, I would have done the same thing, probably sooner, even, but it did not end slavery in this country. That only came after the war.

Steve Aiken is the kind of man you want running your campaign. He's a former police officer and reverend who worked with a children's program in Quakertown, PA, called YouthQuest. He's a radio talk show host who speaks on conservative family values and Republican issues, and he's affiliated with the Traditional Values Coalition. The problem is, the man has a criminal record, though Randy Graf, the Congressman in Arizona's 8th District says that Aiken's crimes are no worse than giving beer to minors. Really?

Aiken was convicted of forcing himself on a girl 15 times, including breaking into her home and undressing her so he could "rub her breasts". The prosecutors in this area I live in saw fit to charge him with a total of 2.5 months in jail. Aiken claims the charges were false, and Graf stands by his campaign manager.

WOW.

I can't believe that this is the best the Republican party can find to run campaigns. Traditional values at their best.

(Link)

You've probably heard all about the sexy poker parties with hookers and booze and limos at the Watergate hotel that were, in part, set up by Duke Cunningham, recently sentenced to 8 years in jail for taking bribes from EVERYONE. Well, ole Duke urged the Department of Homeland Security to hire the very same limo company that was providing people like Porter Goss with hookers and blow. So the DHS gave the company a $21.1 million contract, but has since "lost the letter" from Duke Cunningham urging DHS to give out the contract.

My favorite part of the article:

DHS officials testified the department, which is responsible for protecting the country from terror attacks, has no way to conduct background checks on companies that bid for contracts.

Wow, they really are the Dept of Homeland Stupidity. How can they NOT do a background check on a contractor? I don't want an agency snooping into my daily life but I would expect that they would do the minimum due diligence that just about any responsible company would do. Actually, let's spin that: I'm supposed to trust them with my personal information, and with vetting the people they lock up as detainees without any ability to appeal to detention, but they can't fucking figure out that the guy who they just gifted $21.1 million to is a felon who's lost his license to do business and is tied in with prostitutes and all manner of illegal activity?

I feel so much better all around.

Let me be clear that when I talk about the dangers of tougher enforcement of immigration laws, I am not talking about this group of immigrants. I certainly hope that anyone, immigrant or not, who is robbing banks, raping people, molesting children, and other such heinous crimes should be picked up and jailed.

But you probably already knew I felt that way.

But for the record, can I also ask them to pick up and send Fred Phelps somewhere? ANYWHERE? Can we send him to Gitmo?

With all of the huffing and puffing about immigration recently, one thing many people have heard, while trying to strike a balance is "We don't need any new laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have on the books." or "We don't need to keep locking up the immigrants, but go after the companies that hire them. That'll stop the flow."

Well, ICE was listening, and a few weeks ago raided Fischer Homes in Northern Kentucky.

Two 500-lb bombs were dropped on a house and wreckage flew so far I found a piece in my backyard. And yet, Zarqawi's body was miraculously preserved. How can it be?

I present you:

Top 10 Reasons Why Zarqawi's Body Survived the Bomb Blast

10. He always did love that quote about leaving a good looking corpse from Oscar Wilde
9. They said those bombs were smart, we just didn't know how smart
8. The bomb's didn't actually hit the house, Zarqawi and his buddies were lighting their farts after a night of binging on camel milk and hummus. oy!
7. Zarqawi had recently been dipped in teflon "for posterity's sake"
6. Madame Tussard works a night-shift in body reclamation for the Buquba Police Department
5. Vincent Price works a night-shift in body reclamation for the Buquba Police Department. (The bennies are out of sight! 401k the day you start and all the free medicine you can steal off the UN Medical Transport)
4. The CIA had no need for that Zarqawi body double they'd been growing at Langley, so they shot him and it's his pictures you're seeing instead.
3. It's really Ashton Kutcher and he's waiting until he's in front of President Bush to sit up and scream "YOU'VE BEEN PUNKD!"
2. Zarqawi had taken these pictures months ago for a Halloween card for Osama and we're just using those photos
1. Because the bombs never really fell at all, we only blew it up after the special forces got him out of there, tortured the hell out of him, and got what they needed from him.

Back in 2004, Bush ran a series of billboards that posed the question: "Boots or Flip-Flops", his rather snarky bitch-slapping of John Kerry. That was the big issue in the election, wasn't it? Bush was going to stay the course. Bush was going to be a steady hand on the helm. No wavering here. I guess the fear was that Kerry might change his mind or pause for reflection, which as we know is not what this president does. He's the decider. He decides things, without the news, without input, with just his gut and balls as a guide. The John Wayne president, as it were. This man is made of granite. Or is he? I would like to present the following thoughts for your consideration:

• Bush said that we should keep nuclear technology out of the hands of rogue states, but when we found out that the chief nuclear scientist in Pakistan was blithely selling all he knew to everyone with some pocket change to jingle, we just shrugged our shoulders. Flip-Flop
• Bush claimed we were going into Iraq because they had WMDs. Then it was because Saddam was a bad man (he really was an awful piece of shit, no argument there), and then it was to promote democracy in the Middle East. Flip-Flop
• Bush claimed we'd never deal with a terrorist state, and that Iran is in the Axis of Evil. Now we are offering them economic incentives and opening up the chance of diplomatic ties. Flip-Flop
• We were helping the anti-Islamic warlords in Somalia with money and arms. Now that they've been soundly defeated, we've offered to work with the Islamist forces in Somalia. Flip-Flop

Who's Flip-Flopping Now Bitch?

Thanks to hebedesign on flickr for the right to use the picture in this story.

Given the recent Republican smokescreen, known as the immigration debate, whereby the Republican party has suddenly started screeching about how WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW to protect our borders (and save Republican poll numbers and the Republican majority in Congress), I find this clip very funny. Let me set it up for you. The president's at the border and speaking about how we're going to upgrade the border. Watch the fence in the background behind Bush.

I know that many people are already pointing at it, but Robert F. Kennedy Jr's article in Rolling Stone on the theft of the 2004 Presidential election from the voters makes compelling reading. The problem is that the 31% of people left in the country that like Bush won't believe it for a second claiming it's propaganda from the "liberal MSM" and the ~30% of liberals in the country already suspected this, and the rest of the folks in the middle don't give shit any more.

Still, I suggest that you read it.

Thirty years ago, the President was all but hanged in the streets by Congress for trying to illegally wiretap a single office.

Today, the President is performing illegal surveillence on almost all Americans, and the Congress wants to give him a free pass to do it all the time.

I guess they don't grow politicians with balls anymore.

In a press conference today, Ricky Santorum responded to allegations that he no longer lives in Pennsylvania: "Just because I live on a palatial estate and horse farm in northwestern Virginia does not mean I'm out of touch with the needs and desires of my constituents in Penn...uhmm...Pencil...dammit Joe, where am I from again? Nevermind nevermind, I am in touch with my vassals....I mean voters, and I care about them. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a polo match to attend to."

Santorum's illegal immigrant gardner Hector had this to say: "Shit I see more of his house in Penn Hills than that guy. I go up and mow the lawn once a week."

In light of the recent ABC News story about the government poring over the media's phone records to find whistleblowers comes the following little blurb (via BoingBoing): the Government Printing Office created flash cards to help immigrants pass their citizenship tests, and they enumerated the freedoms listed in the First Amendment as: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the freedom to petition the government. What's missing? Freedom of the press, which is explicitly enumerated in the First Amendment.

Surely this is merely an oversight, but the Bush Administration does seem to hate the press, so who knows?

Link

My friend Richard Harlos has an insightful blurb on his blog regarding the NSA wiretapping and whether or not they're listening in on domestic phone calls. He asserts that it all hangs on how you parse the word "listen". Read it here.

I posted my link yesterday to the ABC article that revealed the Bush Administration is using the NSA calling-records database to figure out who's leaking information. I went back to the story and saw some of the comments from people on the article. They're appalling! I wanted to highlight a few here:

• Good! I hope they do find out who is leaking national security info to the press. I'm tired of the press helping our enemies. Maybe you guys should start trying to "FOR the USA" instead of "AGAINST the USA" ALL THE TIME. I hope the FBI nails lots of idiots who are out to destroy the intelligence agencies and cost us more soldiers and spys!
• 'Bout time you guys are roped in.
• Excellent the Media needs looking after, Traitors most of them.......
• good, you seditionist creeps deserve what you get. who knows how many serviceman have died because of your "right to know"
• I hope the information they gain allows them to catch the scum that leak information, and helps them arrest the communist scum who publish it.
• I am tired of thae news media leaking secret information in order to hurt PREDIDENT BUSH. I would prosucute [sic] the news media leakers for treason like LINCOLN did. We are at WAR with a enemy who whants [sic] to take over the world by force or kill all of us

I find this kind of stuff horrifying. I know that not all of the comments are like that, but truly, there are people out there that want the press locked up and gagged because it's not agreement with the president, or reporting on policies that are illegal that people within the government don't even agree with themselves.

WE HAVE A FREE PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY SO WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT FORM OF OVERSIGHT ON THE ABUSES OF POWER AND YOU SHITHEADS WANT TO REMOVE IT SO THE GOVERNMENT IS COMPLETELY UNCHECKED. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Welcome to the new fascist state.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been fighting to get the details of the NSA wiretapping AT&T calls for some time. Last night, yes, last night, in the middle of Saturday night, to have the lawsuit dismissed. The EFF has been working so hard to protect people's rights in the electronic realm, and I was long overdue in giving them my support.

I recommend you all join and fight to keep people free online.

What's "posse comitatus"? It is a law in the United States that states the US military cannot engage in police activities on US soil except in times of emergency, such as a federally declared "state of emergency" like the time after Katrina.

Southern lawmakers in the House met with Karl Rove (our own Cardinal Wolsey) to petition his high lord that we allow the US military to act in a capacity to fight illegal immigration. A bill has already passed the House which would permit the Pentagon to send troops to the border in "certain circumstances", not enumerated, for police activities. The governors of Texas and Arizona seemed thrilled with the idea.

As the President seems to think that whatever whim he has that day is legal I'm sure he'll just authorize this and it will happen, and most Americans will just yawn, or worse yet, say it's necessary and important and good.

ZFone is software from Phil Zimmerman (the guy who created PGP) as a way to encrypt communications on a VoIP call. The beta for Windows is not yet available, though promised soon, and when it is, I'm going to consider moving to it so I can ditch Verizon altogether. This whole NSA thing has really stuck in my craw.

Find out more about ZFone here.

I called Verizon Wireless and Verizon to complain about their cooperating with the NSA in collecting records of American's phone calls. VZW disavowed any cooperation stating that this was merely being done by the landline companies and Verizon itself said "We won't talk about this, thanks for complaining."

VZW's assertion that they're not participating doesn't amount to much of anything since all the calls get routed to Verizon landlines once they hit a tower so it's still been snagged in this database.

Fuck you Verizon, and fuck you NSA.

In a daring and bold move to proove that they can take a stand on SOMETHING, the Chicago City Council has banned the sale or use of foie gras in restaurants. The law passed 49-0. That's amazing.

The rationale is that it's cruel to the ducks to be force-fed the way they are to get foie gras, and while I do feel bad for the ducks, I think it's beyond silly to just outright the stuff altogether. There's plenty of food practices that I don't agree with: veal, stone crabs, foie gras, but I do think it's better to let the market handle it. Plenty of restaurants have in years refused to serve the stuff and I think that people would decline to eat it if more of them knew where it came from.

But does the government of Chicago really have nothing better to do than outlaw controversial foods and put up large invasive cameras?

I think it's going to be a bleak Christmas this year. Looking ahead in the economy, I think that the higher and higher cost of oil and gas is going to suck some life out of our economy. In March, leading economic indicators sank sharply. Inflation (without energy costs included) remained stagnant, but the Fed continues to raise interest rates, which keeps raising the cost of borrowing money, which will make it harder to businesses that have thought about expanding to do so.

I also think that in some areas jobless claims are going to rise, and the price of everything will start to climb as transportation costs continue to inch upward.

Not only that, but Hugo Chavez in Venezuela keeps rattling sabres and claiming that we are planning to invade him and unrest continues in Nigeria, which will make oil investors even more nervous, causing them to buy more to hold in reserve, which will again push up the cost of gasoline at the pump.

One of the only bright spots is that some refinery capacity in the Gulf is coming back on line, which should ease some of the demand pressure we're under.

I guess I'm just cranky and tired, but I keep thinking that in the US, this is going to make for a more unmerry Christmas in 7 months.

This morning, in Nigeria, rebels from the Niger River Delta exploded a car bomb near a military barracks, killing two soldiers. While that might not sound like a lot of casualties, it's because the bomb was exploded as a message to the Nigerian government that if they didn't "do something" for the people living in the Niger River Delta in regards to the oil companies, they'd start bombing for real.

This is worrisome not only because it means that these guys are taking notes from the larger playbook of terrorists and will probably kill a lot of people to try and gain their vague political goals, but also because the oil company's willingness to further explore the Delta for crude oil sources will evaporate, leaving the world with less reserves. All of this means not only higher gas prices at the pump, but higher prices all the way up the price chain.

One consequence of climbing gas prices I haven't heard discussed yet is the possibility that it will begin to be cheaper to make stuff at home again than it is to make it overseas, ship across an entire ocean, and then drive to the stores. Has anyone else heard mention of this yet? Anyone have any figures because right now I'm talking out of my butt.

MSNBC is running a story on a big shakeup at the Whitehouse. Wow, that's great guys. Here's a thought though: "Shuffling the cards you're playing with doesn't make a shitty hand any less shitty." Or, to put it more succinctly: "You can't polish a turd".

Whatever. I guess in Bush's head, swapping one turd with another equals progress. That's why he keeps yammering about progress in Iraq.

Salon has a great article about Ralph Reed and his connections to Jack Abramhoff. The relationship between the two is amazing. While Abramhoff was working to kill legislation that would threaten his Indian Casino clients in the State House, he'd send money to Reed and ask him to rile up conservative churches in the area as a two-pronged attack.

Are these the good conservative Christian values we keep hearing about? Back in the 80's people on the right professed shock that people like Swaggart and Baker, et al were fleecing their telecongregations out of millions so they could live like kings. Now we've got the former head of the Christian Coalition wielding his influence to support crooked back-room deals brokered by the head rat himself. It's always these pricks who shout the loudest about the morals of others who are most afraid of what's living in their own closet.

It appears that Bush's statement "The Ownership Society" meant the right of the highest bidders to openly corrupt and own the political process to protect their interests.

Anyway, here's the article.

This is the way democracy ends
This is the way democracy ends
This is the way democracy ends

Not with a bang, but a whimper

http://minimumsecurity.net/toons2006/6034.htm

Those are his real numbers, and I suggest you girls give him a call throughout the day and ask him about all the important things in life: tampons or pads, bikini or brazilian, shave it in the shape of a heart or a skull or just clean off, you know, the really important things.

I'm sure he'll be helpful.

The Guardian is reporting on a bill is being presented in Parliament in the UK that would allow the ministers to make laws and without Parliamentary oversight and allow ministers to delegates powers to unelected officials.

While it sounds really scary, it is and it isn't. This moves England more towards what the US has now, which I don't necessarily approve of. In the US, it's possible for Congress to say "We're passing the Clean Toilets Act of 2006" which mandates that all toilets pass certain cleanliness standards to be determined at some later date. It's then up to the executive branch to dictate the enforcement of the Clean Toilets Act, or as it was known when it was being passed USA Surely Toilet Users Prefer Inspectable Derrieres Act. The executive branch would put the enforcement under an existing Department, or more usually, take it as an opportunity to create an entirely new Department: The Department of Investigative Professionals Specializing in Highly Invasive Toilet Searches which are filled with non-elected bureaucrats who then enforce the law with little Congressional oversight.

I do think the key differences here are that the President is not supposed to have the power to rewrite a law at will, as this bill seems to allow a sitting Minister to do, and in the US, the Congress does have the power, if so inclined, to fence in the powers allowed the executive branch.

This British bill does not seem to grant the Parliament the same powers.

Text of the actual bill can be found here.

I put up a site on Gather.com as it's an offshoot of NPR and it's aiming to be something like a MySpace for people with taste...I published my first article on there and it's been picked by the editors to be featured on the front page!

Starting at 7.45AM EST it will be on the front page: www.gather.com. I am enthused. My site is http://mauricereeves.gather.com

I'm hoping to use that site as an extension of my stuff here.

Anyway, I'm very excited!

Third Party Watch (warning: annoying popups) and (moreso) Hammer of Truth are trying to make a big deal of Michael Badnarik's campaign spending $2400/month on an office and staff. Michael Badnarik is, if you remember, the 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate. He's now running for Congress in his local district. My question, and apparently others from the questions following the stories is "What's he supposed to be doing, working out of his living room with a staff of full-time unpaid volunteers?"

It doesn't work that way. $2400/month works out to about $80/day, which is really a fine burn rate for a candidate in any type of election.

This is one of the things that frustrates me with other libertarians. They don't seem to have a handle on what it takes to run a campaign, or better yet, to win a campaign. How is someone supposed to get elected if no one knows who they are and what they stand for? I'll often hear libertarians bemoan the lack of good candidates and say they're not voting. It's a classic Catch-22. You won't find any candidates willing to run until people are willing to vote, but the party faithful won't be willing to vote unless there's someone good to vote for.

I wish Hammer of Truth would stop sniping at candidates who stand a chance of winning and throw their support behind them.

We should be cheering for Badnarik. Thanks for writing guys, and sorry for the incorrect assertions on my part.

I know I'd posted this before, but the links to it keep going dead. As I said before, I don't know whether or not the data within is correct or verifiable, I post it only as something that's interesting.

So this guy is running a story on his blog about how AT&T is "ripping off" American soldiers in Iraq because they're charging them $0.21/minute to call home.

He then proceeds to make wild accusations and do a lot of gesticulations that befit his banner at the top which claims that "nothing great in the world has been accomplished without irrational exuberance". And boy does the irrationality abound here.

A quick (30-second) search online shows that for me to call Iraq from my house would cost me $0.91/minute on Verizon, and that's the same rate as AT&T charges residential customers.

Not only that, but this magic figure of $0.21/minute is not a clear number. A journalist came up with that figure: "Their embed reporter, Wayne Wolley is the one who calculated the twenty-one cent a minute rate; charging on the card is not exactly straightforward."

Truly, why can't we have some outraged directed in places that really deserve it these days and not this steaming pile of shit? There really is nothing to see here; move along.

I have been watching the giant stinking pile of shit that has been the outrage over the Dubai Ports World deal for 3 weeks now and I'm frustrated. I don't see what the issue is. I keep hearing the same few complaints:

1. UAE is an Arab country
2. Port security is lax and handing over control to an Arab country would open us to attack
3. UAE is an Arab country
4. The ports are vital to our national security policies and control of them should not be handed over to the "enemy"
5. Them there A-rabs are bad people
6. etc....

So, the UAE currently has several US military bases on it. They've worked closely with us allow us to house troops, planes, and naval ships in their country, which doesn't exactly make them popular in their neighborhood. Secondly, as far as security is concerned, Israel, yes, ISRAEL, has a port run by this company. If Dubai Ports World can run a port in Israel and the Israeli government trusts them to not be a security risk, what the fuck are we worried about? Also, consider that at some existing military bases, KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton is already partnered with a Dubai-based firm to provide security for naval ships. Oh, and let's consider that one of the ports in New York that the 10th Mountain Division uses to deploy is owned and operated by high-ranking member of the Chinese Communist Party in Bejing. Why do we trust them and not a company from Dubai?

When people gave into this hysteria, it fed the fires of hatred for the US around the world. It furthered the divide between the US and Muslims countries because it makes it seem like we just don't like Arabs, and maybe that's true for most of the US, but I don't prefer our foreign and economic policies to be informed by our worst xenophobic and jingoistic tendencies.

But it's also bad for another reason. Our current trade deficit is $68.5 billion. That's HUGE! We're practically just boxing up stacks of money and shipping it overseas. Those dollars have to get spent somewhere, and usually they're spent buying American goods, American companies, and investing in the US. Some countries and investors are going to get wary of wanting to do business with the US if we keep acting this way, which means that it hurts our economy further. Economist Bruce Bartlett, had a great discussion about this on NPR not long ago. (Link)

I'm really distressed that this fearmongering bloviation reached such heights that DPW has put the deal on hold. We had a chance to show the world how open a society we really are, and how good an economy we are for foreign investors and we spit on both ideas. The democrats took it as an opportunity to exorcise the perceived demons that they're weak on security and the Republicans in Congress ran as hard as they could to jump on that bandwagon that, like usual, the facts got left behind.

They should have done what was best for their people and let the deal go through, not block the deal to bolster their re-election campaigns.

Until now, South Dakota's state motto has been "Under God people rule" but I heard on NPR that they're going to change it in honor of outlawing abortion to "South Dakota: the weather's nice, the living's cheap, and women are chattel".

Classy bunch up there.

My wife and I were talking about the fight to ban abortions in the US, and she raised some more good points:

• When abortion is banned, how are the people going to handle the spate of women who try to force themselves to have miscarriages because they don't want the baby?
• When abortion is outlawed, how will the states handle the growth in the number of children in the state foster care system? We already can't find enough parents for the kids that exist now. And the State foster care systems are running out of money, replete with corruption, and terrible things keep happening to kids in foster care.
• By definition, a child that a woman wanted to abort was an unwanted child. What will hapen to these unwanted children? Will there be a rise in abuse cases? Will there be more neglected children? Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics would believe so. Doing a statistical analysis of crime rates and abortion rates he tried to show that crime has been dropping in the US due to mothers aborting the children most likely to turn into criminals: the neglected and abused.

Let's further my vision of the world after the abortion ban for a minute: Not only are there abortion clinic stings set up, with women being thrown into maternity prisons, but you've got a state actively taking the children from them and putting them into a swollen foster care system where they will be raised as orphans, wards of the state, without many of the benefits of a good upbringing. Women will hurt themselves trying to cause miscarriages, sometimes permanently. Some states will start increasing taxes to pay for the expanded food and health care they must provide. Lots of children will "fall through the cracks", turning to whatever support systems exist for them, including gangs.

Is this what is meant by "compassionate conservatism"? Is this what is meant by "a culture of life"? In all of this, I do not see compassion, only a larger and more intrusive government, that is not only content to illegally tap our phones, watch our activities in the library, and seeks to undermine the Bill of Rights, but now wants to tell women what they can and cannot do with their wombs. Big Brother indeed.

Atrios has a great exchange between Chris Matthews of Hardball and Pat Toomey, who is running for senate in my fair Commonwealth.

Matthews pushes Pat Toomey to describe what he thinks would be an appropriate punishment for a woman who would have an abortion if Toomey had his way and had all abortions outlawed. Toomey flat out refuses to answer. He continues to go back to punishing the doctor.

Does that mean that if a woman has an abortion and refuses to implicate which doctor performed it she'd be tossed in jail? Would we have a "War Against Abortion" with taskforces and black-clad SWAT teams kicking in the doors of hidden clinics and throwing doctors in jail because they're suspected of performing abortions? Would we have sting operation clinics where women who came seeking an abortion would be arrested and shown on Cops and the evening news, their swollen bellies stamped with the words "State Property"? Would John Walsh show up on America's Most Wanted: "Tonight on AMW we highlight Dr. John Reed. This disgusting pervert killed two babies. He claimed he was helping their mothers, saving their lives, but we all know the truth, and tonight they're all on the run. You can help us catch them and bring them to justice."

Maybe we should start building maternity prisons so we can lock up the women until they've had their children so we make sure they don't have abortions.

The fact of the matter is, women WILL get thrown into jail when abortion is outlawed. Are you prepared to lock up pregnant women over this issue?

It turns out that I was wrong (ha, not the first time and not the last). It was not a disgruntled insider to PACleanSweep that founded UncleanSweep.

It was instead created by Bob Nye, a Republican staffer in the PA House of Representatives. Worse yet there is evidence that the Bob's bosses, namely a PA State Representative is helping him with the site.

PACleanSweep has fired back by filing a lawsuit claiming libel. Good for them. I think it's despicable that some Representative would sink so low to attack a whole citizen's political movement by trying to take out its head. Good to know that the politicians in Harrisburg have heard and are afraid.

Someone registered UncleanSweep.com in response to the PA Clean Sweep movement that's afoot.

For those not in Pennsylvania, last summer the lawmakers in the middle of the night voted to give themselves large pay raises in the form of what's called "Unvouchered Expenses", which amount to them going to the treasury like a teenager going to mom and dad and saying "I need another $1000 to buy some new jeans" and the state not requiring any proof what the money was used for.

Worse yet, the Commonwealth's Supreme Court declared the matter Constitutional under the PA Constitution, so journalists found their balls and started complaining and so did the people. Pretty soon the lawmakers vowed to give back their payraises, and then a Supreme Court Judge was voted out of office and suddenly the lawmakers passed a new bill repealing the pay raises. All fine and dandy but the anger hasn't really subsided.

PA Clean Sweep is the largest of the active citizen organizations working to start voting out incumbents in Harrisburg and replace them. Now I certainly do support getting some new people in Harrisburg, and shaking things up, and I think that PA Clean Sweep's activities are noble and good in the sense that they're keeping lawmaker's feet to the fire for doing something really eggregious, but I'm not active in PA Clean Sweep.

I do think that UncleanSweep's attempt to attack Russ Diamond, the guy in charge of PA Clean Sweep, comparing him to Enron Executives, and defaming him is pretty despicable. Especially given that on one page the owner of UncleanSweep attacks one of the candidates endorsed by PA Clean Sweep for making ad hominem attacks against Bush while making the same fallacy against Diamond.

The fact of the matter is, the site seems to be run by someone disgruntled with PACleanSweep and probably disgruntled with Diamond personally, and he's set up this site not as an attempt at good civic duty, but in an attempt to shame Russ Diamond.

I feel that that's a shame, because if there's something we should do, it's focus on making real reform happen in both Harrisburg and in Washington DC. If Russ did take money illegally from PA Clean Sweep then he should answer to that charge, but otherwise, this site is nothing more than a distraction and an unnecessary one at that.

So Congress is finally accepting what the news and bloggers have been reporting for months: FEMA turned away help from all offerers.

I think it's time for criminal proceedings against Brownie, and maybe Bush as well. It's time that someone learn that the kind of blatant political patronage that's occured can really have personally disasterous consequences.

I would feel this way if it were Clinton or someone else that was president. This is not a partisan issue. This is a matter of you don't appoint your friends to positions where it kills and hurts people and destroys their lives. It's apparent now that Bush's appointment of his friend has done just that.

I heard an interview with Attorney General Gonzalez yesterday regarding the NSA wiretaps stating that getting a FISA warrant was too much of a burden and that the wiretaps were akin to when you go to the airport and get searched or enter a government building and get searched.

I find those to be appalling examples, but getting on an airplane or entering a building are voluntary actions undertaken by the searchee who consents to being searched as part of the action they're carrying out.

When my mom calls Germany to talk to her family she didn't consent to be listened in on by the NSA. It's an involuntary search, and that is the reason why we have warrants. It's gives us the assurance that an independent judge has at least reviewed the merits of the case and it passes muster.

I'm 100% fine with the NSA and FBI wiretapping people as long as there are stopgaps in place, like FISA, which ensure that civil liberties are protected.

But for Bush, and by proxy, our Attorney General, to claim that they have the authority to flaunt the Constitution and its protections of our civil liberties is distressing.

I find it ironic that Bush is more worried with trying to build a democracy in a country half-way across the globe while so glibly destroying and dismantling the one we have here at home. The same democracy he was elected to be the steward of.

A British woman has married a dolphin. Upon seeing that the name of the dolphin was Cindy, the Lord took great displeasure, fearing that sodomy might occur between two species of the same gender, but then finding out it is indeed a boy has had to pause for reflection. Is this marriage between male and female, albeit of different species more okay or less okay than a gay man marrying another gay man?

I say we send Fred Phelps to investigate. We all know he keeps a cool head about these things.

I was very interested to see what was going to happen with Tookie Williams, who was executed by the state of California this week. On one hand I was upset to think that he might be killed because he has worked so hard to speak against gang violence and seem to repent for what he had done in his past, but on the other hand, as Gov. Terminator pointed out he did not express remorse for the crimes he was accused of. And I do generally believe that it's important for a person to address the crimes you're accused of when you're seeking clemency.

So there's the rub...did his actions in working against gangs once in prison demonstrate enough of a remorse that he should have been spared the needle, or is it really a requirement that he addressed the murders he was in jail for? I think they do. I think that his activism in prison showed him to be a man that had rethought his past life and was working to make amends.

So I am sad to see him executed, but he knew that the death penalty was a possible consequence of his actions when he was involved so he had to be cognizant that it could occur.

Either way, it's a moot point now. He's dead. Maybe his death will give us all pause to think about when the death penalty should be applied and when not.

So Rep. Murtha, a Democratic congressman from my state has started calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq. It's notable for him to say this because he is a Vietnam Veteran who served in the Marine Corp and is viewed as a hawk on defense issues.

The President and Vice-President and the rest of Republican leaders did not wait long to criticize him personally.

Personally, I wish just once that one of these democrats that did serve honorably in Vietnam would stand up and say "I find it laughable that the President would criticize my stand on defense issues when I served honorably, and he couldn't be bothered to finish his tour of duty because he was too busy snorting cocaine out of the ass crack of an Alabama hooker."

Just once...then I'd be happy.

Now, finally we have a candidate worth watching.

I agree with people that I don't think she's qualified. I'm very perplexed about Bush choosing her. I have one mind that says he picked her so when she doesn't make it through the nominations Bush will be able to play hardball and say "See, I gave you a moderate and you didn't approve her. Now I'm going to pick someone further to the right."

Bush does, however, have a history of cronyism...and I hate using that word because everyone's tossing it around. But someone put up a website recently to "Find The Brownie", or more clearly, point out unqualified political appointees. Placing political appointees have been a sport in Washington, but Bush is a master at it.

One other point, for Latoya: I don't care if 99% of the US population is woman, the candidates to the Supreme Court should still be based on the BEST QAULIFICATIONS, not gender, not race, not even necessarily on whether they can be counted on to be a "swing voter" as so many Democrats and pundits have been bugging for but on whether or not they will allow themselves to interpret matters of Constitutional law and allow themselves to be circumscribed by the boundaries set forth in the Constitution.

Oh, oh...while I'm here, I want to send a big fuck you to Diane Feinstein who thinks it's unfair for the Supreme Court to try and limit her powers through a correct interpretation of the "interstate commerce clause". In case you don't know, the Constitution limits the matters that Congress can create laws on as those that pertain to "Interstate Commerce". The Commerce Clause states that Congress may make laws on: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Sen. Feinstein somehow understands that to mean that she can make gun control laws, or education bills, or hey, whatever the hell she feels like. SHE CAN'T. And one of the reasons she's so worked up about whom Bush will pick for the Supreme Court is because the Court has become more inclined to strike down unlawful legislation because it does not meet the standard set forth in the Commerce Clause.

So I hope Bush picked someone who is a strict constitutionalist who will continue to chap Feinstein's hide. And if that person's a disabled black lesbian muslim who just had an abortion, I don't really give a damn.

So the President picked his choice for the Supreme Court: Harriet Miers. A bunch of people came out going "Oh that's so fabulous, another woman. We needed another woman on the court. This is fantastic!" I call bullshit (but you probably already knew I would).

Why do we need a quota of seats on the Supreme Court? Can't we just pick from the entire pool of candidates regardless of sex and ethnicity? Perhaps we should have a period of seeking candidates where all people are listed purely on their accomplishments and opinions and we're not allowed to know gender or race and we then pick the top 15 candidates from that pool on qualifications alone. I know we can't do that because we don't want them beholden to the public, but still...it makes me sad.

Sonny Perdue closes schools in GA in anticipation of possible gas shortages

In Washington, President Bush praised Perdue for his decision, saying the Republican governor "showed some leadership" in "anticipating a problem."

(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/27/rita.georgia.schools.ap/index.html)

Because anticipating a problem like a hurricane signals leadership, as opposed to sitting around at your ranch when one hits a major North American city.

Commemorating the Holocaust will drive young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings, or so say advisors to Tony Blair. The Times of London is reporting that a panel of advisors sent a recommendation that they replace Holocaust Memorial Day with Genocide Day, so that the killings of all people killed in a genocide will be remembered.

I have no problem with a Genocide Day. In fact, I think it would be fabulous to have a day where we do remember those that governments and other organized bodies kill en masse (since it's almost always a government or tribed that perpetrates a genocide). I don't even necessarily have an issue with replacing Holocaust Day with Genocide Day because it would highlight everyone's need to be aware that genocide continues and will probably continue for a long time.

But to claim that having Holocaust day will give extremists something to exploit and could result in more suicide bombings is NUTS. It's another example of political correctness gone haywire. As if our most important goal in life is to dance around each other's feelings and make sure that no one gets offended. We have more important things to do people.

So we finally have gotten rid of Michael Brown, former head of FEMA. David Paulison is the new FEMA chief. Aside from the fact that he's the guy who advocated we protect our house from terrorist attack with duct tape, he seems pretty good. But none of this matters because the real person in charge of the FEMA efforts is still Michael Chertoff. When the world's coming to an end, he's the man that has to pick up the phone. He's supposed to be the man with the plans who will pick up the pieces of a world gone horribly wrong and make things right.

So who is this wunderkind? Who is this real-life Superman? Head of NYC's Fire Departments? Former Commander of the Coast Guard? NO. He's a goddamn lawyer. He served as a DA and as a special counsel to the Senate.

He doesn't deserve to lead my car around the block.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died.

I'd like to say that I feel some sadness, or that he did great things for this country, but frankly I do believe that the court he presided over was one of the worst in US history, though Oliver Wendell Holmes' court was really awful too. I feel sadness for his family for their loss and the common sadness of another life snuffed out, but I don't feel the sadness of a great and important life taken from us. I wanted to qualify that.

I give it 6 - 12 hours before the conspiracy blogs start spinning his death, and it's timing as planned by the Bush Administration to occur while the country is distracted by Hurricane Katrina so he Bush can railroad some nominee through Congress.

Wait for it. You'll probably see it on www.infowars.com soon. Rantings on AM and shortwave to follow shortly.

Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.

"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life." (Birmingham News)

I think that it's fabulous that while Cindy Sheehan waits to speak with President Bush to vent her frustration over the death of her son, FoxNews finds a way to focus on what really matters: the "protest fatigue" felt by some of Bush's neighbors.

Wow. What a scoop.

So the monthly LP meeting is tonight. I feel inclined to say:

"What are we going to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, try to take over the world!!!!"

But that's not quite a libertarian thought is it?

I have thought for a while that there would be 3 trends in terrorism that would start to emerge as terrorism now seems to be some extremist asshole's preferred method of doing business. The London attacks have shown that I was right about the first one:

1. More terrorists will now come from places like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. This is occurring now. In western nations, the U.S., Canada, across Europe, desi are a quickly accepted minority, especially in big cities. As more people come from the sub-continent, our comfort level with them grows. This can work against us though. There are many muslim in that region, and some of the more extreme forms of Islam come from that area. Consider, for example, the Deobandi form of Islam, which is what the Taliban practiced. It is Indian in origin. I believe that terrorist groups will work to use our comfort level against us. This will in future manifest as muslims from further East acting as terrorists. In several years we will see people from Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries that are to western eye indistinguishable from Chinese people as terrorists.

2. Terrorists will attempt to sneak into the US across the US - Mexican border. Again, in an attempt to use our own perceived comfort level against us, terrorist groups will try to move operatives across the US/Mexican border to infiltrate the country. I realize this is by this point well known, but it does bear keeping in mind, especially considering the amount of talk given to offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, and allowing Mexican truck drivers to travel across the US without special permit requirements on the US side. It only takes a few people who look enough like they are from Mexico driving a few trucks of explosives into middle of America to cause widespread chaos.

3. Eventually, groups beyond our borders will employ the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and groups like Al-Qaeda will look to tap into the domestic groups like the ALF to attack targets on this soil. I feel it's only a matter of time before these lunatic nutjob Animal Liberation Front people feel that they can further goals by getting money, training, and supplies from larger terrorist groups, and attack something big to try and make a point. Again, it works because we are complacent about your average white granola-eating hippie.

By hitting us where we're most complacent, the terrorism has its greatest effect. It makes us wonder who we can trust and cannot, forces us to question the people on our very block, and strikes at the root of those freedoms that make us a truly great country.

Anyway, I just wanted to put these out here and foster some discussion. Let me know what you think.

I suggested earlier that giving up freedoms in the name of safety does not protect someone from terrorism, and I pointed to England. (Read it here).

I got a couple of rebuttals in person, and one on my website. Everyone trying to make the point that the London bombings were smaller in scale and probably reduced freedoms had something to do with that. Then saying further, that if we gave up more freedoms, we'd obviously be safer.

I think that's rubbish. First, let's consider that that somehow sets up this notion of an exchange rate between people's lives and freedom, as if we just keep squeezing people's freedoms until we've somehow rediscovered our own warm fuzzies when we lay in bed. That's a very scary notion, all the more so because the majority's notion of security could change to something more sinister. What then?

Secondly, if giving up liberties really was the path to more security, then obviously places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia should never experience a terrorist attack. People in those countries have very few liberties compared to citizens in the US, but sure enough, there have been attacks in all of those countries.

So, how about it guys? Everyone who will sign on the dotted line to give up their freedoms, how much are you willing to give? Would you be willing to live in a place like North Korea if it meant you were safe from terrorist attacks? Or like Afghanistan during the Taliban? Because there comes a point where the terrorist you're in danger from ceases to be some radical working against the government and becomes the government itself.

I am inclined to believe that Karl Rove was the primary source of the leak of Valerie Plame's position with the CIA, as this story states. It matches his M.O. He's done similar things before.

However, in all of the clips that I've seen of Rove about this story, he's made the claim "I never knew the woman's name, and I never leaked her name." (or something to that effect). And that is what the article ALSO states.

So Rove was being technically correct. But he was also being very hinky with the truth. I do believe that at this point, it's time for Rove to cop to the leak and step aside. His job of getting Bush into the presidency is done, it's what he wanted to do, it's what he set out to do, he's done it.

Now he can move into one of those fat consulting gigs I'm sure is waiting for him.

So a fellow blogger, Aaron, at FreeWillBlog.com pointed out to me that Fred Phelps, the shithead douchebag that protests all things gay, and held a rally celebrating the death of Matthew Shepard while picketing his funeral with offensive signage is a close friend of Al Gore!

Wow. Here are some more details for you (more here) if you're interested.

And still, most gay people will say the democratic party is their party. What insanity. Good catch Aaron.

The US House voted 238-187 in favor of limiting the FBI's ability to search through book store records and library records for potential "markers of terrorism". (Link)

Advocates of the Patriot Act say that this does not have a chilling effect, but I can say that for me personally, I think long and hard about whether or not I should buy books, and whether I should buy those books online with my debit card or go to a book store and buy with cash.

As an autodidact, I like to read to learn new things. One thing I've been interested in reading is the Koran. I hear so much about Islam these days that I'd like to read the Koran and be able to speak intelligently about the issue, and debunk those who are speaking crap. (For the record, I think that both those who say that Islam is a religion of peace and those who classify it as purely a war-like religion are both full of crap. If you read the Bible, you could draw the conclusion that God is both a legalistic God, focusing only on you following his rules, and a loving God that cares for all of his people)

But I don't buy the Koran, or several other books because I don't want to draw the attention of the FBI or whomever would mistake me with a terrorist based solely on what I read.

I can only imagine that if it has a chilling effect on me, it must have one on other people as well.

Rep. Steny Howard of Maryland has submitted a bill which would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which is the Constitutional Amendment which limits a president to 2 terms.

Seriously? FOR REAL?

Rep. Howard's other bills include authorizing a soapbox derby in Washington DC. What a guy.

Over at atrios.blogspot.com, there's an entry wondering why more small businesses don't support "liberal" ideals, because, in the author's eyes, they're obviously more small business friendly.

The answer is obvious to me. The democratic party has for a long time now (since FDR) supported policies that are very business-unfriendly, pushing an increase in meddlesome agencies like the EPA, OSHA, SEC, SBA, FTC, etc. Maybe they're well-intentioned, but well intentions doesn't cut it. Congress has given these agencies broad discretion to enforce laws with little or no cap on their power. Their fiat rulings are hard to oppose or defy, and when someone does stand up to them, it costs them time and money and often jail time. And their decisions are largely arbitrary, based on nothing more than the person prejudices of the "enforcement officers".

Not only that, Democrats push policies that put a lot of business at a disadvantage by requiring companies to hire minority firms first, rather than seeking out the small businesses that do the best job.

Democrats wish to reinstate the inheritence tax, which would unduly burden the children of entrepeneurs who would inherit their family's successful businesses.

And Democrats wish to increase taxes on the very same upwardly mobile entrepeneurs who are making money because apparently the money they earn in due reward for their hard work isn't really their's after all. It now somehow belongs to society, and government, who thinks it knows better how to spend that money.

Small business people don't like the Democrats, and so called "liberal" ideas because they represent the worst kind of interventionist meddlesome government that makes the lives of small business owners harder. They impede the best efforts of those working the hardest to make a good life for themselves.

That's why most small businessmen throw their lot behind the Republican party.

Of course, that is not without its own peril, as the Republicans would like to be able to control what people can and cannot buy. Republicans actively seek to reward larger businesses with laws granting them government-enforced monopolies that are unassailable in court. And they still wish to tax people for useless agencies, though not to the extent of the Democrats.

Any questions?

I ran across this in my RSS aggregator. Anyone know if this is on the level? Are more and more soldiers going AWOL?

So I saw this article referenced on Eschaton this morning and went to read it. Kevin Drum said in his article

"Union power in the private sector began to wane in the 1970s, and it's not a coincidence that this was exactly the same time that middle class wages began to stagnate, CEO pay began to skyrocket, and income inequality began increasing inexorably."

I haven't seen a stagnation of middle class wages, but that's only my perception. More importantly, I find the comment to be troubling because Kevin Drum doesn't provide any information to back up his claim. I'd like to see some economic data that backs up that assertion.

What I will say is that based on what I've been reading in Henry Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson" unions do little to impact the real wages of their employees, and often reduce the real purchasing power of many people across the economy and drives the prices of goods up.

I can summarize Hazlitt's arguments if anyone's interested, but I'd recommend you pick up his book instead, since he did a fine job writing it.

I've created an account on Meetup.com for any interested in being involved with the Bucks County Libertarians. You can find it here:

http://libertarian.meetup.com/252/

I want to say that I laud the fact that the Patriot Act will sunset soon, making its heinous and odorous provisions go away, but I fear that the sunset provisions will only open us to the possibility that lawmakers will seize this opportunity to stuff in even more invasive laws, and steal away more liberties.

It's a frightening thought for me that it could get worse.

I'm not going to be happy until I see the thing dead and buried with a stake in its heart.

UPDATE: to the person who corrected my punctuation, thanks. I'm normally very good about those types of things, but I was writing off the top of my head, and in a rush, and a mistake slipped through. Nice to know I'm not the only one who gets frustrated with those types of things. If you haven't already, Anonymous, go grab a copy of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" by Lynne Truss. It's fabulous.

Saw this today on MSNBC. Apparently, more than a third of students in high school that were surveyed think that the government should have control over what newspapers print.

WHAT?

Isn't part of being a teenager being about rebellion and revolt and taking down the man? Since when have they turned around and wanted a bigger and sterner daddy to tell them what they can and can't say? I blame Hilary Duff and the Disney channel with their wholesome movies and family values...

I hereby call on the spirit of Russ Meyer to come down from his buxom leather-clad heaven and start setting torch to all things good and clean. I demand that the Lords of Acid start releasing their classics like "Darling Come Here and Fuck Me In The Rear". I order Lenny Bruce to ride a flaming black stallion out from the bowels of hell spewing epithets...

Seriously...

gah, what the fuck is this? Folks, those of you old enough to remember the Soviet Union remember what price the people who lived in the Eastern Bloc nations paid to speak their mind? Do you remember how people were shot, hung, and sent to Siberian gulags for writing words that their government did not approve of? Didn't we just send our military into two nations where people were oppressed by their leaders, WHERE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK?

And now, NOW, our children would have us enter freely into a world where our government would tell the press what it can and cannot say?

I said this before, and I'll say it again. We once lived in a world where rather than live under the yoke of Soviet rule, we were willing to blow up the world 100 times over. We promised those that would attack us and take away our freedoms that we would destroy them and ourselves before we would EVER subjigate ourselves...and now pfft...people are willingly putting the yoke and bridle on, and begging to be whipped.

It's enough to make me wish for days of the Cold War again, so at least what we stood for, what we fought far, stood out in sharp relief to the horror of lurking tyranny.

So you'd think that as much as I disliked Ashcroft and his policies that I'd be jumping up and down about his departure...but I have mixed feelings. For me personally, his religion, and his personal beliefs were not as important as his actions in office, his priorities, and his views on civil liberties.

That's why the nomination of Roberto Gonzales to fill the position has left me feeling cold. The man was the same White House legal counsel that wrote memos in favor of torture and in favor of indefinitely holding people in detention, including American citizens, without being able to see a lawyer or even be tried.

I don't want an AG that I have to fear trying to weaken the Constitution to give himself more power. But then, Janet Reno was always doing end runs around the Bill of Rights in her tenure in office, so why should I be surprised?

What kills me about all of this is that everyone's so bitterly divided on the issue of abortion, that people are using it to define the policies of Ashcroft and Gonzales and how they differ. Abortion is not the only political issue we should be focused on folks. Please start looking at the bigger picture.

Anyway, a press release is to follow.

Bucks County Libertarians Support Arthur Farnsworth During Legal Battle

For Immediate Release:

Bucks County - Bucks County Libertarians wish to extend their support to Arthur Farnsworth during his legal battles. One day after losing his run for congress (www.artfarnsworth.org/), he was indicted on the 5th of November for tax evasion. The government prosecutor asked that Mr. Farnsworth be held without bail, deeming him a flight risk, even though he�s never failed to show up for an appearance, and has deep ties to his community.

Libertarians have a long history of acting in defiance of laws that are unjust, unclear, or patently wrong, and supporting others who do the same.

Mr. Farnsworth, in his act of defiance, acts in the spirit of many great Americans. The Founding Fathers we celebrate in Philadelphia acted against unjust taxes; so did the participants in the Boston Tea Party; as well as local hero John Fries, in Quakertown, PA. John Fries led a rebellion against tax collectors in the late 18th century. This is the same John Fries who now has a highway named after him in Northern Bucks County. It is ironic to us that while we once honored those who fought against taxation as patriots, now we jail them and label them criminals.

This will be a difficult time for Mr. Farnsworth. He is a good man, a volunteer in his local church, its choir director and organist, our local candidate for US Congress, and our brother in ideology. The Bucks County Libertarians will do everything in their power to assist Mr. Farnsworth and assure he is afforded due process during his legal battle.

About the Libertarian Party:
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States. There are currently 600 Libertarians in local office around the country. For more information about the national Libertarian Party, please go to www.lp.org

About Libertarians in Bucks County:
Bucks County has a long history of supporting libertarian candidates and ideals. In this most recent election, over 1300 people in Bucks County voted for the Libertarian candidate for President, Michael Badnarik, and over 3200 voted for the Libertarian candidate for Senate, Betsy Summers.

For more information:
For more information regarding Mr. Farnsworth�s stand against taxes, please visit his site at www.enter.net/~arthurlf/
For more information about the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party, please go to www.lppa.org
For more information on the John Fries Rebellion, please go to The James Mann Art Farm Website

Editor's Update

I'm watching the season finale of "Real Time with Bill Maher". I love the show, even though I don't agree with Maher's politics, the show's incredibly entertaining and insightful, and the guests always have thought-provoking things to say.

Andrew Sullivan is on tonight, and he keeps trying to make an important point, one that I think has been lost on those in positions of influence in the Democratic Party. Specifically, the point is that just because a voter has a strong belief in God, and believes that it's important to them that their leader believes in the same God as they does not mean they should be marginalize as a voter.

I am uncomfortable saying that in a sense, as I believe that basing moral decisions purely on religious beliefs is a bad thing, and I get very nervous around those that would incorporate more church in their state. And I agree with Maher on the fact that plenty of people in the world that have had strong faiths (Osama anyone?) have acted terribly immorally. I further agree with Maher that it's more important to derive one's morality from rational thinking, then from religious edict.

But Sullivan, and Alan Simpson earlier in the show are also right. The Democrats have to stop marginalizing and ridiculing the Christians. They need to speak to them. They don't need to cater to them. They don't need to change their platform or their goals. But they need to speak to them.

You would think that a party like the Democrats, that advocates socialist philosophies and wants to institute charity at the state level would have more of a voice amongst those that profess a Christian faith. This is, after all, the faith that holds charity, forgiveness, and loving thy neighbor at its core.

Maybe things will change, but honestly, I don't believe they will.

Michelle Malkin is running a series of stories that are called "Liberals Are So Lovely", which highlights, in her mind, attacks from liberals on Republicans. So, for example, she linked to this story which shows a man's car that was vandalized because he had a sign in his car that said: "Democrats Kill Babies, Attack Churches, Slander President Bush, But Accuse Others of Spreading Hate". Let's just ignore the directly inflammatory nature of the man's flier in his car, and the fact that he was putting it there to piss people off (otherwise, why tar all 'liberals' with that brush he was using?) and say this:

It's stupid and pointless to denounce an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, UNLESS, said action is directed from the leadership. Hence, there isn't the claim that the guy kicking the protestor at the RNC represents ALL Republicans, but is just a complete ass himself. Also, isn't it possible that these acts of violence are just random acts of vandalism that are prepetrated by children, teenagers, who, in their rage lash out at those who they feel are in power? Probably, and we only hear more about it because of the highly charged election we're going through now, and increased media coverage, including all of the bloggers jumping all over the story.

I don't excuse the actions. Breaking someone's car window because you don't agree with the message, no matter now ugly it is, is wrong. But to turn and say "Those Damn Liberals" is shortsighted and dumb, and you're just another dickhead playing partisan politics.

I guess that makes him a liar.

So I've been consuming media from the poisoned wells of both major political party, and something I've been hearing a lot of lately is John Edwards' Two Americas. Something about that really nagged at me, tugged at some parts of my brain, but I never really paid it any mind until this morning when I was up at 6am with my son watching "The Al Franken Show" on Sundance On Demand.

This talk about a rich America and a poor America, the haves and the have-nots, and taking from the rich to give to the poor is Marxist. Think about it for a second. Edwards is saying that there's a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, and that he's fighting for the proletariat.

If you don't believe me, read this quote pulled from Wikipedia about Marxism:

Marxists believe that capitalist society is divided into two powerful social classes:

the working class or proletariat: Marx defined this class as "those individuals who sell their labor and do not own the means of production" whom he believed were responsible for creating the wealth of a society (buildings, bridges and furniture, for example, are physically built by members of this class).
the bourgeoisie : those who "own the means of production" and exploit the proletariat. The bourgeoisie may be further subdivided into the very wealthy bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie: those who employ labor, but may also work themselves. These may be small proprietors, land-holding peasants, or trade workers. Marx predicted that the petty bourgeoisie would eventually be destroyed by the constant reinvention of the means of production and the result of this would be the force movement of the vast majority of the petty bourgeoisie to the proletariat. An example of this would be many small business giving way to fewer larger ones.

Now, read what John Edwards had to say when he introducted his idea of "Two Americas":

Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.

They're the SAME idea!

And we're going to vote a Marxist into power? No way. Absolutely not. I can't even begin to think that people would willingly be duped into voting into power a person who advocates, who espouses, who preaches the very philosophy we spent the previous 50 years fighting against. The same ideology that we built a giant military and massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to defend ourselves from. A way of thinking that we were so against that elected leaders like Reagan to defend us against it.

It's madness, and all the more so because NO ONE, NO ONE has said so much as a word against the idea. This hurts my head.

So, all of these news organizations are running their own polls to see who the people think won the debate last week. (Here's a link to CNN's).

Here's the thing that struck me today. I don't care who won that debate, because either way, Bush or Kerry, we, the American people are the losers. We all lost in that process because:
1. It was only the two major parties that got to debate, and no 3rd party candidates, which means we have no real choice. Bush or Kerry is like botulism vs. ptomaine. I don't know which is which, but both are slowly poisoning us.

2. All of this focus on lecterns, body language, turns of phrase, etc mean almost nothing about who gets elected in November. It's all about who can get more party faithful out on Election Day. These debates are just so much electoral masturbation. The people voting are not going to be swayed by what they saw. Republicans hated Kerry, Democrats hated Bush. Let's move on.

The only thing that I can in earnest about the debates is that we've finally got the candidates talking about policy issues and what they want to do. At least, they're kind of approaching the subject...from afar...with baby steps...oh screw it.

It was basically garbage anyway. But like some political car wreck junkie, I'm still going to watch all of them.

Everyone's spinning the debate, but who's giving you what really matters: the reviews of the post-debate analysis? That's why I'm here for you folks.

Let's get it on:
FoxNews: Full-bodied and rich up front with a weak finish. A panel of four in the studio with a fox anchor (sorry, I don't remember who, it was late and I was tired), they really weighed in heavy with the insightful analysis of things like "Who Filled Up The Screen" and the qualities of the individual lecterns. Wow. At some point, Tommy Franks came on and droned about some lake in Afghanistan and Preperation H, or something. I didn't quite get it. Extra points to them for reminding me every few seconds that the Terror Alert Level is: Elevated.

ABC News: Weak and bland. I only took a few sips before I left in search of something more interesting, like my cat sleeping. Oh look, he rolled over. Wasn't that exciting? Wow he did it again. Oh, did Peter Jennings say somethin...oh look, shiny object.

CNN: Fruity and brash, but with only a hint of body. I'm not sure what they thought with having their analysts sit in front of the crowd leaving the debates, which meant that Wolf Blitzer, in an effort to be heard, was practically SCREAMING! IN! MY! LIVING! ROOM! 10.30pm, the last thing you want is him hollering at you. It's also hard to focus on what's being said when the most interesting thing is how it's being delivered. That's why no one watches The Naked News for their content. Aside from the that, there was nothing of note to see here. Moving along...

CBS News: Exotic and exciting. I enjoyed the fact that CBS was able to give us the real story about what was happening after the debates, namely, the full-scale riot in the streets of Coral Gables, FL. Getting to see Democrats and Republicans rumble like the Jets and the Sharks was fantastic. "When you're a dem, you're a dem all the way, from your first welfare check to your dying day". Problem was, after a few minutes, the whole thing felt manufactured, not authentic. I can't quite place my finger on the problem, but it was there.

Also, it was great to see CBS trying to restore some of it's credibility by having Edward R. Murrow reporting again. I had heard he'd died in 1965, but doctors these days can do wonderful things.

The Daily Show: Bright, sparkly, amusing. This was the analysis that had it all. It was funny, insightful, interesting, and entertaining. It had some depth to it, without being too heavy. I find it interesting that what's supposed to be the equivalent of a $2 cooking wine comes out ahead of the other contenders. It wasn't much of a contest folks, but I declare the Daily Show the winner!

Special Notes: Wesley Clark's plan to clone himself is going apparently very well as he was on everyone's show. The bad news is the Mayor Giuliani must have snuck into the cloning chamber too, since I couldn't get him of off my TV either. It got so bad that when I turned off the TV, the images of Clark and Giuliani were burned into the tube on my TV. The ghostly melded faces looks frighteningly like an old Eddie Munster.

Thanks for coming, and have a good day!

I'm letting her columns get away from me. Shame on me. So I'll make this quick...

In the article about Dan Rather, Ann talks about the scandal at CBS and attacks everyone from Bill Burkett to Al Gore to Dan Rather to to Kitty Kelley to Margot Kidder...okay...

Despite all of this bile and hatred spewed, she only clocked in at 7 total fallacies.

But that's not what I want to focus on today. What I wanted to say was that she criticizes CBS for not revealing Bill Burkett as their source for the forged documents because he's had a long-running hatred of Dubya. Okay, fine, but I haven't heard a peep about John O'Neill, the man who runs the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and wrote "Unfit for Command". John O'Neill's made a living debating Kerry, attacking him from the time of the Vietnam war on. He was even hand-picked by Nixon to debate him live on TV during the 60's. To slam CBS for using Bill Burkett while ignoring O'Neill's long history with Kerry is two-faced.

Alright, the other article comes in even lighter at only 2 fallacies, and I have to say that I agreed with the majority of this article. I do think that the New York Times is terribly skewed and, more importantly, wears its bias on its sleeve with pride. It's important that we keep the heat on the Times until they stop the majority of the Socialist nanny-state crap they write.

So, a total of only 9 fallacies across two articles...good job Ann. Maybe one day you'll actually be a voice of reason worth listening to, instead of the shrill white witch of the right.

So my candidate for President, Michael Badnarik, was on my local NPR station yesterday morning. Sadly, I don't think it was a slamdunk. He got cornered on the gun issue and on healthcare, and instead of making a strong case for why the libertarian position on both is the correct one, he got bogged down in semantics.

Also particularly painful was the whole 'Switzerland' issue. Many in favor of actually supporting the 2nd Amendment highlight Switzerland as a good model because everyone in that country has a gun in their house. Not just a gun, but a military assault rifle. Problem is, the Swiss do have guns in their houses, but the ammunition is tightly controlled. Badnarik didn't know this nuance, and when someone on the show confronted him about it, he floundered.

What should have happened instead was this:
Caller: "No, the Swiss have boxes of ammunition in their house, but they're sealed, and monitored by the government, and you get in trouble if you open them."
Badnarik: "Sure the bullets are monitored by the government, but since when has the monitoring of anything been a deterrent to crime? We monitor prostitution, drug traffic, gambling, and a host of other activities which are illegal and they continue to this day. If someone is intent on committing a crime they will commit the crime, irregardless of whether the government's watching them or not. The fact that the Swiss people have guns AND ammo in their house without an increase in crime is still significant. In fact, the amount of regulation on bullets is a non-issue in my mind, and shouldn't be what ends this debate. We have more important things to discuss than just that."

Oh well. Next time perhaps.

You keep demanding the release of women prisoners in Iraq while holding two young Italian women. Tell you what. Let the Italians go and stop being hypocrites.

Can you tell me how many governors in the United States have received exploding mail in the last two weeks? Yeah, you probably haven't heard about it either. The last time I read the story online, the count was at two.

Now it's 14.

Why haven't we heard more about this?

It's that time of the week again: we're counting the logical fallacies in an Ann Coulter article again. Today we're defanging this article.

Wow, she pulled out a lot of stops today. Especially at the end. I'm not sure what's going on with Ann, but she's mad.

Alright, let's dive in. So at the top of the article she talks about democrats having the "paranormal ability to detect racism and sexism". Sure, liberals seem extremely sensitive to these issues, often more so than common sense would dictate, but paranormal? That's exaggeration. AnnCoulter.fallacies++

She then turns on Bill O'Reilly, calling him a liberal and saying that HE TOO can read minds. Maybe Ann was watching too much John Edward (the psychic) and confused him with John Edwards the candidate, so now she thinks that all liberals (O'Reilly's a liberal?) have ESP. That's exaggeration AND ad hominem. A two-fer!

I'm experiencing Vietnam Fatigue. Every day I turn on the news and hear debate about the Vietnam War, something I thought we had settled 30 years ago or so. *sigh*

It's gotten bad enough that I don't even care about some of the bigger stories that are coming out in the press now about the candidates and 'Nam.

For example:
CNN is reporting that Dick Cheney spent 2 months in Hanoi negotiating contracts for Halliburton to handle the food service and laundry service for the Hanoi Hilton and a chain of 6 other POW camps. Apparently CNN has some proof, in the form of documentation, but experts are calling that into question since they're written in crayon and have the name Brittany on them.

FoxNews has been running a story that John Edwards was Pol Pot's operating legal counsel in Cambodia during the Khmer Rougue, and actually fought in three skirmishes between Cambodian forces and NVA regulars along the border. They've also claimed that Edwards represented an NVA regular in a civil case when he slipped on a poorly constructed part of the Ho Chi Min trail, but that's at this point unsubstantiated.

After that story from FoxNews, Air America Radio, America's primary source for liberal radio countered with the story that Bush's actual job in the Texas ANG and later in the Alabama ANG was to bomb Mexico under orders from Poppy and the CIA to take America's attention away from Vietnam. They played a radio clip where W called Mexico part of 'el eje latino del mal estupendo'. Unfortunately, the shadow war against Mexico went poorly for the Americans, so it hasn't come to light until now. Apparently the devestation and bloodshed were just horrifying.

Which brings us to the most shocking story. It came to my attention on the the Sean Hannity Show that Kerry spent a delusional 3 weeks in Bangkok, high on angel dust, screaming about Laotian insurgents, and slaughtering Thai prostitutes in the back of a VW minibus. Democrats cried foul, saying this is a typical right-wing smear campaign engineered by Karl Rove, but some Texas businessmen have come forward with statments from 48 people who claim to have been in the minibus at the time. Their evidence is still being coroborated.

I would have, of course, been shocked when I heard these stories any other time in the news, but because of the Vietnam fatigue, I just don't care. But I'll keep you informed if I hear any more about these stories.

The Illinois State Rifle Association is running a story about a special taskforce that Mayor Daley in Chicago has brought together to start confiscating all guns in the Chicago area. But even more interesting is the fact that this taskforce, known as CAGE (Chicago Anti-Gun Enforcement), has access to nationwide gun purchase records, and has been downloading them.

Why does the Illinois State Police need to know if I chose to buy a gun in Pennasylvania? I don't think that they should even know if someone in Illinois bought a gun, but I know that makes my more statist friends claim I'm a nut, whatever. But I absolutely see no need for them to know about anything going on beyond the borders of their state.

Call me crazy, but I think that privacy is important, and the ability to act on my constitutionally protected rights is also important.

But now that Bush has just released documents showing that he was indeed suspended from the ANG that were supposed to have been released under the FOIA request by the Associated Press, can't he get in trouble?

I mean, if you just arbitrarily withhold documents you're supposed to hand over, that's a crime, right?

Well kids, it's that time again, yes time to debunk Ann Coulter. Well, it's not technically debunking her, since I'm not taking issue with the facts she presents. This is more like defanging her, which is appropriate since she reminds most people of a snake. Damn, I'm starting to sound like her. Well I guess it rubs off.

So here we go:
Todays article is entitled: "The More John Kerry Changes, The More He Stays The Same". Ooh, catchy.

Okay. She starts off with 1 exaggeration and 2 counts of mockery in the second paragraph. 3 already, and she hasn't made a point yet. You'd like to think that all of the third paragraph is an attack on John Kerry, but it really isn't. Kerry indeed changes his position, flip-flops, so it's hard to tell where he stands. He might say his position is nuanced, I say he needs to say something substantive. Whatever.

Ann then goes on to make some truly funny statements and point out some of the more obscure but humorous ways that Kerry has dramatically changed his position.

This was a very light article for her, and I'm frankly a little disappointed. I was looking forward to spending some time skewering the skewerer, but not today.

Frankly, the way Kerry's been phoning in his campaign lately makes it possible for Ann to basically phone in her article. Which leads me to phone in this update and then I'll hang up.

Total fallacies counted: 3

As an aside - I wanted to say something to the effect of "She's ignoring what Cheney said and letting it slide", but she's really not. Ann Coulter truly believes that a vote for Kerry is like placing a large bullseye on America, and she credits the vice-president for speaking the truth. I, however, don't believe that that's necessarily the truth, and I don't think that Cheney truly believes that either. I think that he was saying that more for calculated political effect than to make a point. But this is not the place to carry on that discussion.

Cheney Predicts Another Terrorist Attack If Kerry Wins

So, let's ignore the fact that Cheney's trying to scare people into voting for Bush by promising more terrorist attacks if Kerry wins the election. I mean, that's just ugly politics. "Vote for me, or you're all GOING TO DIE!" I guess it worked for LBJ against Goldwater. Whatever.

So, when the first attack occurred, Bush and Cheney said that the attack is all the Clinton administration's fault. They tried everything they could to pin the blame on Clinton...so if another attack occurs, wouldn't it be the Bush administration's fault? Or are they completely composed of anti-fault, driving all fault and blame away from them?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Morning Sedition on Air America Radio just called the mainstream media "fluffers for the President while he screws America".

That made me spit out some Diet Pepsi.

Here's the thing that kills me about people's continued calls for immediate Chechen independence, ala Russia just cuts it loose and lets it go: If Chechnya gets independence tomorrow, it becomes the next Afghanistan. It becomes the new global terrorist Wal-Mart, where people can go buy whatever they need (except now with better access to surplus Russian military equipment), train for whatever they want, and spread throughout Europe more quickly and easily. (If this all hasn't happened already).

It would become a viper's nest of islamic hate within months, and that's a disaster we couldn't afford.

The British Red Cross is asking for donations to help the Sudanese refugees displaced by the Janjaweed militias.

They're asking for money, but I've got a better idea: I'm willing to donate a few rifles and some ammunition that the people in the Sudan could then use to defend themselves against the quasi-Islamic, government-supported rape squads.

In fact, I think that the NRA should put some balls behind its rhetoric and form a task force that goes out and delivers weapons to people to who are being opressed and teaches them how to defend themselves. If they did that, I'd sign up the next day and become a member.

MSNBC is running a story about Putin's refusal to negotiate with the Islamic fascists operating out of Chechnya that attacked the school in Beslan. It said that Western officials are calling on Putin to negotiate, but it failed to say which. Who cares? That's not material.

If you're interested, the Christian Science Monitor has a political quiz that will help you determine who you should vote for.

I think it's well done, and the sections of the quiz are nicely broken out between Economic Issues, Foreign Policy, and Cultural Issues.

Kudos to the CSM.

It's good to see compassionate conservatism in full effect. After a protester was dragged to the ground by Madison Square Garden security, a young man jumped out his chair and started kicking the young lady.

Video can be found here. They include a picture of his face, and the New York City police are looking for him. If you've seen him, or know him, holler at me and I'll pass it along.

What a bastard.

I'm getting tired of the Republicans assuming they have a mandate from God, and that everything they say is correct, but I'm even more tired of a few things from the Democrats:
1. I'm tired of the doves running everything. Sometimes you need to go to war to protect yourself. If the bully on the playground pushes you around, you don't run to the teacher, you hit back. The same goes for nations.
2. I'm tired of hearing from the Democrats that they're the party we should vote for because of the principle "Anybody But Bush". I know it's meant in jest, but some democrats have taken it too far. STOP IT! I'm not going to vote for just anyone merely because he's not Bush. I think I've demonstrated time and again that I'm no fan of Bush, but I'm not going to vote for Kerry because he's the anti-Bush.
3. STOP WITH THE VIETNAM shit already. Fine John, we know you went to Vietnam. That's admirable. I'm thankful that you chose to serve. Move on. Next issue. In fact, let's talk about something OTHER than national security and the fact that you went to Vietname. Every time I see a democrat on TV it's like "mumble mumble Hanoi mumble mumble Delta mumble mumble Vietnam Vietnam war hero mumble mumble".

At this point, I wish we'd have Howard Dean to vote for. At least then we'd be talking real political and social issues.

I know some others have pointed this out, but in case you need some further evidence that this was NOT an act of rebellion or a war against the state of Russia, Arab Jihadist mercenaries were fighting alongside the Chechen terrorists. That's right, Al Qaeda members were involved in the attacks on school-children. THAT'S TERRORISM!

When is the media going to start labelling these people as what they are? Terrorists!

At least some Arab newspapers are running with the truth. How long till we can convince the American media to do the same?

I was glued to reports of the Russian School standoff and I was getting angrier and angrier as I listened to news stories. The reporters kept calling the hostage-takers as Chechen rebels, or Chechen separatists. What a load of bunk. They're terrorists! Plain and simple, terrorists. When they attacked 8-year-old children, they're no longer fighting against the state, but they are waging terror, and for that reason I feel no sympathy for them or for their cause.

Rebels do not do this to children. (WARNING, disturbing image). Terrorists do that to children.

So, the Chechen rebels attacked a school today, and they're holding some 400+ students and parents hostage. If you haven't heard about it, here's a link for you. What a mess. I'm serious, that's just crazy. They're promising to kill 50 students for every terrorist the Russians kill.

I have two thoughts:

1. This shows the consequences of having an unarmed populace. In Israel, teachers are armed. Parents going on field trips go armed. They do this because the Palestinians tried crap like this. It ended fast when everyone started going to school armed and would-be terrorists got killed. Funny how that works. The Russians should consider arming their people and then find out how long it takes before the Chechnyans stop running raids into other provinces.
2. I hope that the Russians don't negotiate. If they feel they must negotiate, I'd send Slim Pickens in to talk them, Dr. Strangelove style. In fact, I have a picture of him on his way to his last negotiation meeting:
   
   For those of you completely out of the know, Slim Pickens is riding an atomic bomb that's been dropped out of a B-52 onto Soviet soil. It's from the movie Dr. Strangelove. Now that you've made me explain it, it's kind of lost it's humor. But I'm going to continue on with my point. I'm sick and tired of these muslim extremists, these islamic fascists that would impose their religious point of view on the entire world. The minute you start doing this kind of stuff, you're fair game. I'm not going to have any sympathy for you or your cause. That goes for the Chechens, the Palestinians, anyone.

So, my solution to finding Bin Laden is simply this: we blanket that no-mans land between Afghanistan and Pakistan where he's supposed to be hiding with pamphlets explaining that unless someone gives him up in the next week we're going to nuke the entire region. We've tried money, it didn't work. We tried Special Forces, that didn't work. Let's pull out the big sticks now. If you don't want to go nuclear just yet, we can go with chemical weapons. That's fine. Let's get it done. I'm ready.

Well, it's that time again. It's time to count the logical fallacies in the latest Ann Coulter column.

Today she's doing some more talking about John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans. This should be fun.

Surprisingly, we had to get to paragraph 5 to hit our first true attack, which is, again, and ad hominem attack, against Democrats in general. Personal attacks seem to be a favorite of Ann. We start the count at 1.

In paragraph 7 we find exaggeration when she calls Doug Brinkley Kerry's hagiographer. A hagiographer is one who writes biographies of saints. She's using it in the sarcastic sense, duh...

Another ad hominem attack in paragraph 11. That raises the total to 3.

And she closes the article with 2 more personal attacks. This was a light day for her. Maybe she had writer's block. Anyway, that makes for a total of:

5 logical fallacies in today's article.
Coulter's spread a total of 21 fallacies across two articles. That's not something to be proud of, especially given how many people hold up her articles as something akin to the truth.

Oh well. There's no accounting for taste.

So, I don't know why, but I keep going back to read Ann Coulter's "columns". I guess it's akin to driving by car wrecks. It's amazing to see a mind with so much potential in the middle of a full-blown crash of overwrought logical fallacies.

In case you don't know, a logical fallacy is defined as an error in reasoning, sometimes intentional to make it easier to refute an opponents argument, and sometimes unintentional. Everytime I read an Ann Coulter essay I feel like I need a pad and paper to keep track of all of the crap that she's spewing. The other day I decided to just put it here instead.

By the way, I'm referencing the column for 8.25.2004.

Alright, we hit the 4th paragraph and we've already got 5 fallacies, all of them ad hominem attacks.

The next paragraph sees her employ exaggeration when she says that Chris Matthews was excoriating people "for breathing oxygen", which we know is not true. Then she uses an appeal to authority to try and undercut any point that Matthews may have tried to make by saying that Hardball only has 6 viewers left, and then finishes with another ad hominem attack. It's interesting in all of this to note that she calls Chris Matthews on one of his own logical fallacies (I'll believe that he committed this one, many people are), called 'begging the question'.

Total count so far: 8

Let's press on...The next couple of paragraphs she says that Matthews interviewed himself (ad hominem), which cuts against what's normal (popularity fallacy). She then attacks another person (another ad hominem) and then attacks him again. Ann Coulter proceeds to show us a bunch of places from the transcript where someone wasn't allowed to speak, or was interrupted, without showing us the context of the interuption. That's fallacy of exclusion.

That's another 5 for a total of 13.

She then rounds out with a few more ad hominen attacks, giving us about 16 total logical fallacies in an article about a page and a half long.

16 fallacies. That's a lot of bullshit for her to peddle as the truth. And it's not even feel-good happy-go-lucky bullshit. This is down in the trenches bare knuckle boxing bullshit, the kind that's written just to make the partisans feel good and to rankle the opponents. I was going to ask why do so many people listen to her, but I think I know why.

September 2nd, Arthur Farnsworth, head of the Bucks County Libertarian Committee will be meeting with a group of Libertarians to discuss his run for the 8th District House of Representatives seat.

The meeting will be held at the Dublin Star Diner in Dublin. Holler at me if you want more information.

I am a little disgusted that the RNC picked a woman, Sheri Dew, mormon, business woman, owner of her own book publishing company, but she's a hysterical shrew that feels very strongly about gay marriage.

How strongly? Strong enough that she recently equated gay marriage with the Holocaust. Yes, that Holocaust. Let that sink for a minute. She's disrespecting the memory of all of those murdered by the Nazis to say that if Bob and Joe get married, a whole race is extinguished. So if Mary and Tina do the whole ceremony deal, it means that a whole race of people die.

Now, Sheri wasn't kind of to tell us WHO dies when a gay couple gets married, so I guess we'll just have to wait around and find out. I don't understand how in one week, Dick Cheney can display some common sense and then the party turns around and picks a shrill nitwit to lead them in prayer.

I don't know if this hasn't occurred to you people that are completely against gay marriage, but it breaks down like this: Someone doesn't decide to stay straight because they can't get married. Tim's not sitting in his living room saying "Man I really like cock, but I've always dreamed about getting married, so I guess, since I can't get married if I'm gay, I'll just stay straight and marry Betty." You're just setting an artifical limit without real cause? Don't believe me? Ever think about this: Denying marriage rights to gay people is the same as when white bigots used to deny the right of marriage to blacks.

Back in the early 1900's lawmakers claimed that giving black people the right to marry would undermine the institution of marriage and would destroy families, and tried to pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting 'people of color' to marry, or interracial couples from marrying. Sound familiar? Well, it didn't pass, thank God, but most importantly (though it would seem obvious to us now), letting more people get married didn't end civilization as we know it. It didn't cheapen marriage. It didn't destory the institution of marriage. None of the dire predictions that were made them came true, and if you were to say them now, people would wonder where you were hiding your white hood.

Come to think of it, that's all Sister Sheri Dew is doing when she espouses the crap she does. She's exposing her true colors as a bigot. And bigots don't think about who they're going to hurt or disrespect when they spout hysterics. They're just worried about preserving their own deeply held insecurities. They're afraid of something they don't understand and so they're bigots trying to stop what they don't comprehend from confronting them.

So back to letting this woman lead prayer at the RNC. Did that RNC intend to send the message of such hatred and bigotry? I can't imagine that they did. And they're not the only party that contains bigots (though they seem to exist in a higher percentage there)...but I'm still disturbed that her bigotry did not disqualify her from leading prayer. George Bush said that he wanted to make his administration one that united, not divided. He's talked about compassionate conservatism, and leading a Republican party for all people. Those were fantastic ideals, bold goals for a nation, and one reason why I decided to remain optimistic when Bush took power in 2000. Maybe he could meet those ideals.

Letting this hate-filled woman lead prayer on the opening day betrays those ideals. And that's a shame.

I know that many people are uncomfortable with gay people in general, or don't grok why some people are gay while some are straight. People still debate if it's a matter of choice or a matter of genetics. I figure, whatever, choice or genetics, if it makes them happy, and they're not hurting me or my family, I could care less.

I don't buy into the theory that two men kissing will hasten the apocalypse, or is somehow corrupting the future for my children.

Anyway, I was sent this link: Outright Libertarians. It's a group of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, et al (hereby designated by GLBT) that advocate Libertarian politics. That makes sense to me. Libertarians support the removal of government from personal decisions like owning a gun, doing drugs, running a business, having an abortion, why not sexual matters too?

I know the stereotype is that all gay people support the Democratic party, and maybe that's true of the majority of GLBT voters, but it's nice to see that there's a vocal minorty that's standing up for what they believe. If you are GLBT, or even if you're not, it would benfit you to learn more about the Libertarian Party and about our candidate Michael Badnarik as well.

Alright, I'm tired.

Good night y'all.