A brief flicker

Occupy Santa Rosa

2011-10-16T19:43:00.000-07:00

I'm just posting pics.

Play hard ... work hard

2010-08-04T19:49:00.000-07:00

To all my happy, happy, gay compatriots [gay, gay, happy compatriots? ;) and your "nefarious" sympathizers and enablers (the latter groups are ones in which I claim membership)]. Congratulations for your perseverance through the idiocy that was/is Prop 8. Enjoy the victory. Celebrate like it's summertime (because it is... unless you live in the Southern hemisphere in which case, do it anyway because it's fun). Party like it's whatever year you like. Serve up and save up good cheer and the positive energy it generates. Because... you are going to need it.

Historically, the incumbent party loses seats in the midterm elections after a wave election (Obama kicked ass in the electoral college, thus meeting the conditions). The Republicans--

I don't mention the tea-hadists (or teabaggers, or 9-12ers, or whatever the clowns feel like calling themselves this week) here because they are functionally identical to the Republicans and a sponsored subsidiary of the same Republicans--

The Republicans already had history on their side to gain seats in Congress and thus more power to either obstruct essentially all non-foreigner killing government function, or if they gain control of the House, launch endless, wasteful, costly "investigations" in hopes of "getting" something on the Democrats.

In addition to history, the Republicans also have the pain and anxiety of a economic downswing (that was largely caused by their fiscal (and militaristic) policies) to boost enthusiasm for their lagging "brand".

You also have the buyer's remorse effect of electing someone who hasn't given you your pony RIGHT NOW! And (unfortunately) mix in the not insignificant portion of... let's just say melanin motivated voters, and you have a recipe for a hard fought election season.

But now we've touched one of the pillars of modern movement conservatism. The gay portion of the "god, guns, gays" trifecta that they've been running on for the last few generations. All that other crap was amenable to some leverage of reason (probably not much). But this is one of those supercharged emotional issues that will bring out the low information, zombie conservative voters in droves. A gay case going up to a federal circuit court (and eventually to the Supreme Court of the U.S)?! A gay case from Sissy punk California home of the San Francisco gay?! You might as well put Crystal Meth, two free all you can eat Hooters passes and a lap dance coupon in the voting booth. They'll be there (and most likely be square).

You think I had it hard the first go round, but I had the tail end of what was the shittiest presidency in the modern era, the inherent interest in a Presidential election, and the top two candidates for my party being first of a kind. Everyone had something to be excited about, everybody had something to vote FOR.

You cats are in it for real. It's a midterm election, so no presidential glamor, the aforementioned systemic hurdles, but on top of that you have to essentially fight conservative white jesus AND not alienate otherwise liberally minded voters who might have to remnants of the anti-gay rhetoric embedded deep in their personality. When I was on the campaign trail, it was still considered gauche to be blatantly racist. It's NEVER been gauche to be blatantly homophobic.

You have your work cut out for you. I'll be there to help, but got damn y'all better put on y'all grown folks drawers 'cause it's going to be fucking ridiculous out there this fall.

But I LIKE Soylent Green!

2009-08-06T10:48:00.000-07:00

I have been wondering about this in one way or another for the better part of a year. A comment on another blog caused my mind to focus on it this way today...

Why are people clamoring for a dystopia?

I could see if you worshipped the elder gods and prayed to be eaten first or some such. I could see if you were a dedicated nihilist (although those seem rarer than the first group of people).

I can see being ideologically wound up in bringing about a utopia. Who doesn't want it to be all good? Really, the big problem with utopias is that people can't decide on what is 'good'.

Here you have a large amount of the population who believe that things are jacked up. Ask around. People will tell you about how this is wrong or that is bad.

Now ask them about doing something differently than the way it is currently done.

Sure you'll get some resistance, people generally like their habits; but when you explain the changes and the need for changes, many people accept the change and move on.

Not some people.

Remember these people are a part of the same group that agrees that things aren't right, and yet will strive to their utmost to preserve the status quo.

Now obviously you have some Uberman denizens of fantasyland who think: "I've got mine, screw you", or at least, "I'll get mine, so screw you". Those folks are further around the bend than I'm willing to deal with right now.

You also have the resistance to change I mentioned before, but even if those people don't like the change proposed, they come up with counter proposals and then you can reach some sort of compromise or consensus.

The remainder though, the "I'd rather die than change" people, where do they get their impetus? They don't have any counter proposals, all they have is NO.

I think it is easier to be for something than against something. What do they get out of it? Attention? Some inner joy from being miserably contrary?

My mother gets that way about certain things. You can discuss all of a subject to a certain point and she is right there with you until a certain point. Then I can see that she doesn't like where the conclusion is heading so she'll try to backpedal, but since she was right there agreeing with everything it is easy to get her to realize that she still agrees with you. Then I see her features set into a certain grim determination like she is mentally holding on for dear life. At his point we've been at every point around the conclusion and she agrees with every premise, but refuses the conclusion.

The only analogy I can think of right now is looking at a map with someone; showing them the path and watching them trace out the route's destination and agree to it. Walking on that same path with the person and coming to a bridge and the person doesn't want to cross the bridge. You show them structural engineering books (that they agree with), bridge design manuals (that they agree with). Even pictures of them on other bridges (that they enjoyed being on). But they won't cross this bridge. You cross the bridge, you drive a car across the bridge, you stampede a herd of bison across the bridge, you drive a damn tank across the bridge. They still won't cross it. You blindfold them and lead them across the bridge, and when you take the blindfold off they agree that they are on the other side of the bridge. But (to them) they still didn't cross the bridge. You ask how they got to this side of the bridge and they'll come up with some ridiculous answer that you know they don't even believe, or they'll shrug and say, "I don't know, but what I do know is that I didn't cross that bridge."

How do you even talk to people in this circumstance?

Now, what if you had some people who stood to benefit by encouraging what I can only call the denial of reality. And, those clowns aided and abetted the reality deniers, taking away even your last ditch ‘desire for social primates to conform to the standards of the group’ solution.

Now how would you get through to them?

I haven't been posting.

2008-10-04T02:59:00.000-07:00

I've been asked why I haven't been posting. I could say it's because of work, school, and volunteering for the Obama campaign [the preceding is probably poor grammar]. Really, it is because I've been so immersed in the Obama campaign that the campaign or the campaign's subject is all that I would write about. I write about things 'kicking around in my head' and since I spend a significant portion of my free time talking with 'undecided' voters; my blog could easily turn into a 'tech support hell' type of place for low level political operatives. While that would be cathartic for me, and probably funny to some folks; that's not want I want to do.

The tone of my observations on this election season are more than adequately described by the posters and commenters at various sites.

These sites include:

Talking Points Memo
Sadly, No
Balloon Juice
The Huffington Post
The New York Times
The Washington Post
FiveThirtyEight.com
The Field Negro
BBC News
Reuters
McClatchy
CQ Politics
Open Left
FireDogLake
Economist (Democracy in America)
Politifact
Hullabaloo
Crooks and Liars
The Field (Al Giordano)
Too Sense
Slate
The Atlantic (Andrew Sullivan)

and more...

So, if you want an approximation of my opinion; compile the themes for these sites, and you'll find a large degree of accuracy.

Intentional comedy... this time.

2008-09-05T15:22:00.001-07:00

See more Adam "Ghost Panther" McKay videos at Funny or Die

Why not pile on?

2008-09-03T16:05:00.000-07:00

Listen to conservative pundits actually tell the truth about Sarah Palin.

Dope.

Yeah...

2008-08-25T19:59:00.000-07:00

... I hate two sentence blog posts too, but Michelle Obama inspired me all over again. I'll post the speech when I find it. Watch it (if you haven't already or just need an encore).

Build up that wall!

2008-07-31T22:06:00.000-07:00

If you are progressive and non religious or merely pro separation between Church and State...

For the first time in the history of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Convention will begin with an Interfaith Gathering. This is also the first official event of the 2008 Democratic National Convention and signals an opportunity for all those in the faith-community to unite around the faith and values they share as Democrats.

But what about Democrats who do not have a faith? What will they do at a gathering that DNC Convention CEO Leah Daughtry declared "is a time of celebration of various religious traditions" in the Democratic Party?

The Secular Coalition asks that you and your friends and family in the secular community. TAKE ACTION NOW.

They provide your standard form letter when you click the link. I wrote my own.

Dear Rev. Daughtry,

I am an Atheist. Your decision to hold an Interfaith Gathering as an official DNC event disturbs and alienates me. One of the United States' major enduring errors is the ongoing deterioration of the Founders' ideal of separation between Church and State.

I do not need a Democratic version of Regents University type appointees polluting my government.

The DNC convention is a political event which showcases our representatives in the government. Their political function is secular and associating their public function with religion, at very least, sends the wrong message.

The Interfaith Gathering is non sequitur for the DNC convention. You could have a perfume appreciation gathering at a bookbinders convention and argue that many bookbinders like and appreciate perfume.

You must understand that as perfume does not thematically advance or enhance the bookbinding agenda; Faith does not thematically advance or enhance the Democratic Party's (and by extension the United States') agenda.

Sincerely,

Let 'em know...

A dissenting opinion on baseball.

2008-07-02T16:15:00.000-07:00

Post from Thoughts and Acquisitions

Baseball...I used to love it...

I used to love baseball. I'd not say I lived and died by baseball, but it was a major part of my life growing up.

Over the past two seasons though, I have gone from avid baseball fan, to passive baseball fan, to barely caring about baseball. There are a few people to thank for this. First, I would like to thank Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees. At first I liked A-Rod because he came to the team and was humble enough to take a 3rd base position knowing he wasn't going to take short stop away from Jeter. But then he clouded over the entire team making himself the only player to be seen. And not in an "I hit 8 homers a game and use a bat as a toothpick" kind of way...but in a "more errors than anyone else in the majors and I still get paid more than god because I'm me" kind of way. He showed that the love of the game is even gone for most players. It's just about the cash.

It's important here to note I was raised a Yankees fan. They betrayed me with David Justice and I endured, but A-Rod is getting on my nerves even more now.

Next Yankee up. Roger Clemens. Either he is really honest, or he is totally full of shit. Either way, he has shown a lack of class in all that he's done recently, again erasing all the good things.

Barry Bonds. Biggest Blight on Baseball. Ever.

Now there are other small things, like the fact of pitchers throwing for 3 or 4 innings and calling it quits...benches so deep a team could play against themselves a couple time and still have relief at every position...juicing...umpires on strike...the list goes on.

So I am professional-sportless this summer. Maybe I'll look into Jai-alai...

Wrong about Bonds. It is still 'the' Strike.

That event finally broke baseball's romantic hold as 'America's' pastime.

By showing the nuts and bolts side of financing and business required to run the game. People could view it without the rose colored glasses of their youth.

It also allowed the NBA marketing juggernaut spearheaded by David Stern's savvy and Michael Jordan's popularity to re-enchant the disenchanted baseball fans with an exciting, fast paced sport; seemingly built for the sound bite / highlight media.

If that wasn't bad enough it also allowed the the NFL, which had been making gains all throughout the '80's to finally catch up by also exploiting the vacuum created in sports media by increasing its market share.

With the corporatization [don't you love important sounding fake words?] of all sports (including baseball) you have even more of those remaining fans of their pastoral game lose interest.

Add to that the rise of NASCAR, and now when people talk about sports superstars, baseball players invariably rank right above hockey players, who had their own strike issues which, in the era of media commodity, is essentially suicidal (more on that below), which is to say not near the top of media (and thus [inter]national consciousness).

How is that for a nested statement?

Quick explanation on the path to obscurity.

no content = no visibility ::
no visibility = no recognition ::
no recognition = no casual fanbase ::
smaller fanbase = less revenue ::
less revenue = impaired ability to produce content :: see step one

McCain... how about you STFU?

2008-06-12T22:05:00.000-07:00

I won't step on Keith's feet too much here. It does seem like I'm turning into a half-speed video blog, but no matter. John McCain asks for context, John McCain gets context.

(Yes I'm still participating in the John McCain link-o-rama. For details on the John McCain link-o-rama, see the John McCain post below.)

A bit of preview:

"You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is… not… that… important.

That, Senator McCain, is context.

And that, Senator McCain, is madness.

The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."

In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though… they were already wounded.

And when they come home, is… not… that… important."
--Keith Olbermann

Make sure you get what you deserve.

2008-06-12T14:45:00.000-07:00

Vote ~~Republican~~?!

Obama to McCain: RTFM

2008-06-09T18:32:00.000-07:00

pwned.

"...President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush's policy of 'too little, too late' into a policy of 'even less, even later'. That's not the change we need right now. That's what got us into this mess in the first place..."

n00b.

"...Think about that. At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous..."

John McCain

2008-05-29T21:29:00.000-07:00

1--John McCain Votes to Filibuster Minimum Wage Hike
AOL News is highly ranked on John McCain, and the minimum wage increase was incredibly popular.

2--John McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist
This article emphasizes how corporate special interests have formed McCain’s economic policy. If it becomes the top ranked MSNBC article, it will appear in the top ten searches for McCain nationwide.

3--Bush, John McCain plug Social Security
Seniors are going to be the key swing vote in this election, and they hate Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. This is the best polling message against McCain of all, which isn’t surprising since our victory on Social Security is how began to turn the tide against Republicans and conservatives three years ago. The headline alone ties McCain to Bush, and this article already ranks very high on searches for McCain Social Security.

4--John McCain blasts Obama’s and Clinton’s attacks on NAFTA
This is a great article because it not only ties McCain to NAFTA, which is quite unpopular, but it also draws a contrast between McCain and Democrats on the issue. The LA Times is also in the top twenty searches for John McCain.

5--John McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years"
McCain’s "100 years" statement ha damaged him already, and this article has already been significantly optimized on Google. While Mother Jones is not an ideal news source, it is the top article for this quote, and appears in the top thirty searches for John McCain already.

6--John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
This is my personal favorite. The headline just makes McCain look like an asshole, and ties him to Bush. Who is opposed to health insurance for kids? CNN also is in the top ten searches for McCain and John McCain A lot of people will see this one.

7--Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, John McCain opposition
While I am not thrilled about using Salon, since it isn’t as well known, and since there is an advertising wall that hides the story, the title is damaging enough. McCain’s opposition to the GI Bill really hurts him, and tying him to Bush is just as bad. This title does both in a clear, straightforward manner.

8--John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion
Pretty straightforward, and extremely important. More than half of all women voters think that McCain is pro-choice. This will quickly change their minds.

9--John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy
The classic McCain SEO, that still appears in top thirty searches for McCain and John McCain. It is also proof positive that this campaign will work, because it appears as the second CBS news article, but still on the front page in Google searches just below the CBS election center information on John McCain. That is all we need to do to get it on the front page of searches about McCain--optimize it against other CBS articles. Also, even though this SEO campaign was abandoned fifteen months ago, it still ranks in the top forty in McCain searches. If a fifteen month old campaign is still that effective, imagine what we can do with enough participation in this campaign.

What am I doing?

oh yeah...

John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain

The best 12 minutes of your day.

2008-05-15T01:05:00.000-07:00

Yeah, it's that good. Watch it.

GOD DAMN AMERICA

2008-04-25T09:22:00.000-07:00

New York Region

3 Detectives Acquitted in Bell Shooting

By MICHAEL WILSON

Published: April 26, 2008

The detectives were found not guilty on all felony and misdemeanor charges in the November 2006 death of Sean Bell, who died in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a club in Queens.

-Full text-

I could probably better tolerate the breathless recurring coverage of the deadly shark attack if it weren't for the following:

a person can stay out of the ocean where the sharks are
that makes a shark attack an avoidable situation

a person can not reasonably stay out of public areas where the police are
this makes a police attack an unavoidable situation

One of these circumstances are much more likely to affect your average news consumer. I will not 'spot' you any guesses. I'll just inform you of the high improbability that 12% of the entire U.S. population is in the ocean.

I'm waiting...

2008-04-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

...for the primary to be over because it is consuming my life (this is what happens when you get involved with actual campaign work).

For our faux news visitors/NYPost readers:

HEADLINE - Kentucky congressman calls Obama "boy".

This is my complete lack of amazement. (hint: click the word 'this')

This is the lame 'explanation'.

Watch it.

2008-03-12T18:01:00.000-07:00

Keith Olbermann's special comment.

I'll have it up as soon as it is available.

Now available:

Keith's diary from DailyKos

Laughter soothes...

2008-03-12T11:30:00.000-07:00

I won't say it heals in this case for obvious reasons.

Also, this isn't the first time she has mouthed off in that manner, here's what she said 20 years ago about Jesse Jackson:

And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

Gleefully jacked from DailyKos who reprinted it from the April 15, 1988 Washington Post

Racist on day one.

2008-03-11T17:03:00.000-07:00

Are you fucking serious?!

She's been sick?

She's on medication?

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.

I don't care if your being beat upside the fucking skull with the ass end of a '72 Buick. You (or anyone apologizing for you) can NOT use that as a got damn excuse. Think about what they are asking you to accept.

Allow me to paraphrase .

Since she is in pain, she's probably cranky and short tempered and less likely to invest the time to sugar coat her statements or tell the necessary social 'white lies' to get along in public.

Ummm... I'll take kiss my black ass for $2000.

That means that she is normally thinking and living in that mind state.

Fuck you Geraldine, eat a dick and choke.

Find out for yourself... here.

20th debate super quick rewind

2008-02-26T19:39:00.000-08:00

Yeah, I've been slacking, I have almost all humanities classes (lots of writing) so deal...

************************

[6:00 P.M. PST]: Start

Clinton message altering montage…

Clinton: This is a contested campaign, but we have differences; but his tactics were disturbing, he forced my hand… goes into her mandated health care defense. States her plan will cover everyone and it would be affordable… calls his statements about it inaccurate.

Obama in Somali garb

Clinton: Continues plausible deniability defense

Obama: Takes Clinton at her word… goes into defense of mailer; draws the differences between the health care plans (95% similar) talks about her mandate… gives her wiggle room with Massachusetts example, says shes whining about negative campaigning

Clinton: This is a really important issue, she states that Obama’s plan has a mandate that require parents to insure their children; says that insurance companies will benefit without a mandate; repeatedly states that she has experts agreeing with her health care plan

Obama: responds with his own experts including ex-pres Clinton’s staffer, says his reduces cost the most and looks for her mandate enforcement

Clinton: goes back to the parent’s children’s mandate and says there is no difference (her voice raises a few octaves) compares her plan to a new deal plan or a 401k… and says hers is cheaper overall

Obama: refutes her cost control spin, defends his children’s mandate, says her experts claim there is no real difference between their plans

Clinton: presses on, continues to talk over the moderaters and Obama

Obama: cites specifics refuting her claims

NAFTA

Clinton: goes into the the Saturday night live defense; says she has been a critic of NAFTA from the beginning, said she didn’t have a public forum in the administration… says it works in some areas of the country and not in others. Wants to do a trade “time out” to reassess and reconfigure the plan, it doesn’t work, cries foul again

Obama: It inaccurate that she had been always against NAFTA; cites her Senate run where she said it was good for NY and good for America. Hes into the “When I am President of the US” thing

Will you end NAFTA? (Tim calls her on her record of defending NAFTA)

Clinton: No. Will renegotiate. Keeps trying to shift the questioning to Obama and off of her. Continues to say its working some places and not in others

Obama: No. Agrees with Clinton’s position; cites Tribune Senate endorsement for his stance against NAFTA (does the when I’m pres thing again)

Has it been good for Ohio?

Obama: Not completely, blames administrations stewardship of the economy… spins into stump speech about his economic plan.

Tim calls her on job production failure in NY

Clinton: blames Bush on her failure in NY, states she’ll have more power as pres; cites her husband’s job production record… spins into economic stump

Clinton’s comments about foreign policy

Obama: Clinton conflates longevity of experience, cites his judgment on Iraq; attacks McCain, goes specifically hawkish on ACTUAL Al Qaida.

Is Obama qualified?

Clinton: experience blah, blah, blah… just a speech, when they were both in office they were the same, states he’s wrong about Pakistan and meeting with dictators. Thinks she can compete better with McCain on foreign policy

Obama: States that he was in a hotly contested Senate campaign so that speech DID have real risk for him. Says she was ready on day one, states she was ready to give in on day one (to Bush). His claim is not just a speech, but judgment.

If Iraqi gov’t asks tells you to get out, will you?

Obama: Yes. But thinks we can be in a partnership, we have to send a clear signal to the gov’t that we won’t be their forever; we cannot be held hostage by the Iraqi gov’t… expenditure is unsustainable

Clinton: Yes. There is no military solution.

If Iraq goes to hell do you think you have the right to reinvade?

Clinton: Tim, stop making up shit. Says we will have an orderly withdrawal. Says Obama has never done oversight on his Europe (NATO) committee

Obama: Became chair @ the beginning of this campaign, we are getting resistance from our allies in putting more troops into Afghanistan because we fucked up so bad in Iraq.

[6:48 P.M. PST]: Commercial break

Hillary’s sarcasm.

Obama: Sounds good. [laughter from Hillary and the audience]

I thought Clinton showed good humor gives her points for delivery. I understand the point she’s trying to make, but I spent 20 years trying to help people. If she thinks that’s all talk, then she need to ask the people I helped. Goes into anecdote about how D.C. doesn’t listen to the little people. I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t think I could help

What did you mean by that comment?

Clinton: I know things won’t be easy, you can’t hope it will, or you can’t say it’s the right thing to do. I have a plan, it takes a fighter… goes into anecdotes from the campaign trail. Brings up their differences on fiscal votes (Energy/Credit card).

Obama clip showing the claim credit for good things in the Clinton years, but run away for the bad.

Obama: correctly states that she claims her WH years as experience, restates his claim. States he didn’t just object to the credit card thing it was the whole bill, brings up the voted for the bill but hoped it wouldn’t pass remark from Clinton. Talks about her failed healthcare strategy. We need to mobilize the people to change things.

Public campaign finance for general election…

Obama: I’m not the nominee yet, brings up McCain’s FEC troubles. Says I wouldn’t take PAC finance, got 90% of donations from small donors; $109 average

Clinton refusal to release tax return.

Clinton: The American people that support my campaign is where my money is coming from, I’ll do it when I’m the nominee maybe before that, not before Tuesday.

Will you release you itinerary as 1^st lady?

Clinton: Yes. As soon as we can.

Farrakhan backing?

Obama: I’ve been very clear in my opposition to his policies, I can’t censor him. I can’t tell someone they can’t say I’m a good guy.

About church leader?

Obama: I have support of the Jewish community. I have been a stalwart supporter of Israel. I don not tolerate anti-semitism. Wants to rebuild the historic Black/Jewish relationship.

Clinton: She said she rejected support in her N.Y. Senate run, she was ready to take that stand. (Snide calling for rejection from Obama). She thinks he isn’t strong enough in his repudiation.

Obama: If she thinks denounce isn’t stronger than reject… then I concede the point. I denounce and reject. (ovation)

[7:15 P.M. PST]: Commercial break

Most liberal voting record.

Obama: Let look at the source and the 2 vote difference. (2 year on 1 year off guest worker & external investigatory body) Calls it silly. People are past the labels.

Who is going to be Putin’s successor?

Clinton: He will be handpicked and control by Putin. The opposition was run out of town. The so called opposition leader has been praising Putin. Stumbles over his name.

Obama: agrees with Cinton’s assessment. Recalls Bush’s stupid gullibility and his lack of attentiveness to Russian affairs.

If they try to help retake Kosovo?

Obama: Work with international community. Praises Clinton intervention.

Take backs?

Clinton: Talks about her Iraq vote says she wouldn’t do it again [OMFG!!! She finally takes it back!!!] but… this election should be about the future cites other international problems and says she is better equipped to handle them.

Obama: the Terri Shiavo vote, thinks he should’ve stopped it, he didn’t act and he should have. Echoes Clinton’s praise-a-thon at the end.

Closing question: What question does Clinton need to answer to win?

Obama: Clinton is better to McCain, but I’m better than she is for the job, she doesn’t have any question to answer; I can bring the country together in a unique way.

What question does Obama need to answer to win?

Clinton: I still intend to win, still honored to run with Obama, thinks 1^st woman president would be a sea change. My experience gives me the best chance of getting things done. Goes into campaign anecdote about helping needy people , we need a middle class fighter.

As some of you know...

2008-01-17T23:42:00.001-08:00

...I have friends in Kenya, so I'll be posting excerpts from my ongoing conversation with one of them as it applies to what's going on there.

I say excerpts because I've omitted various personal remarks and identifying details.

I'll be green, the other person is red

I know you're probably busy, but seeing as how there is worldwide reported organized violence in your general location, don't you think you might:

a.) check in a bit more often, so people who are concerned about your well being don't have to suffer premature gray hair

b.) if you're not in danger, report on what is actually going on from your point of view so we can compare it to the media coverage and have your unique insight?

hey...am fine...working hard at keeping the country informed and reminding people that ruining your neighbours property really has no impact on politicians...

am not in danger but then again am part of the establishment though everyone is affected because we all have some family in affected areas

foreign media houses [cnn, bbc, reuters etc] are being sued by the govt for inflammatory and sensationalist journalism so keep that in mind as you watch the news...
you can only report on JLos butt size for so long, so when an actual death comes along journalists get their dicks hard trying to make a name...

am pissed off at foreign media because i work in a news room...
yes people have died...
yes Kenyans are afraid for their very lives and our country...
yes we are pissed off at Kibaki and Raila...
but to act like we will never recover is irresponsible when you consider what this country means to the region... if Kenya coughs, the region catches pneumonia...
the rwandese are rationing fuel, ugandans are buying it at extortionate prices..

anyway i will keep you posted and not be so quiet :)

Keep the factual insight coming...

Stay safe...

its raining in Nairobi which is highly uncharacteristic for January but its great because Kenyans are solar powered so there will be no riots or so called peaceful demonstrations that involve tear gas...

am safe and my family is safe but i cant say the same for my colleagues families... all this tribal animosity creates distrust on such a fundamental level... suddenly what were kikuyu jokes, are now inflammatory statements... and you can only smile at people for so long when their tribesmen killed your family upcountry.. you know?

I don't actually exactly know how you feel about the smiling at people who've done your family wrong. The only thing I can relate it to is the strange compartmentalization that I quickly manifest when I get the "...but I didn't keep slaves or MY family didn't own slaves..." remarks. It keeps me from killing people. In my imagination I would just intensify that visceral lust for righteous retribution to simulate an approximation of your situation. That being said, I don't know if I could keep myself from participating in the violence. The reptile brain is sooooo seductive.

Nevada debate (semi-live)

2008-01-15T20:14:00.000-08:00

Race / Drugs

Clinton: no card playing; lauds MLK ties all 3 together under dream umbrella, reiterates the squash of the beef between her and Obama

Obama: leads in with stump speech; can't solve race issue unless we come together as a people

Edwards: we made progress, but we're not done, gives anecdotal story about past; we should move forward

Accountability for race explosion?

Obama: expresses contrition, states that campaign staff can be overzealous; segues into economic issues; states that Clinton simply out worked him in N.H., not race

Clinton: says she's willing to believe Bob Johnson's retraction, states that campaign is too important to have the real issues cloud the issues; segues into economy

E-mail question -no real candidate difference; why should she have to choose between 1st black and 1st woman

Edwards: leads in with stump speech, states that you should decide based on what the candidate will do for you;

What do you do against them (Clinton/Obama)?

Edwards: reiterates that you should choose based on actions/agenda

Regret the N.H. debat 'likable' comment?

Obama: yes, it was taken the wrong way; we should focus on real issues; segues into 'we should bring people together to effect change', meme; choose based on what candidate can accomplish

Were you 'piling' on?

Edwards: No. My job is to speak the truth, speaks to the entrenched corporate intrests (which implies that his attack on Clinton, was based on his perception that she is allied with them)

Your husband said he could win, could your comments damage Obama in the fall?

Clinton: We're in hard fought contest. Has higest respect for her opponents, falls back on the 'ready on day one' meme, dogs Bush for going to the middle east with his hat in hand begging for good oil prices; will not back off of her unique 'readiness' stance.

You said you weren't an operating officer...

Obama: I was describing how I view the presidency; thinks that it is about vision and bringing together the best people and getting ideas, and then getting the populace mobilized to back them

Greatest strength / weakness?

Obama: bringing other disparate people together / slight absentmindedness

Edwards: fighting spirit / strong emotional response to the plight of others

Clinton: starts off off topic, mini-stump experience/change/blah,blah,blah... impatient & frustrated (attacks Obama for not being a manager|compares him to Bush) /

Obama: you do have to ba a good manager; you get the BEST people for your team and hold them accountable; to look at Bush, says he couldn't get past his ideological perspectives and the Bush couldn't manage costs and ask questions and had no vision

Lots of false information about you, alleges that you are a Muslim... how do you respond?

Obama: States all the correct information (Christian/Bible/Pledge); states that the people are smart enough to not be taken in by misinformation; brings up climate change, taxes,
other platform issues;

Economy... Citigroup and Merrill Lynch asking for money to stay afloat from 'essentially bad people'. Is that wrong?

Clinton: I'm very concerned, displays technical economic jargon, wants transparancy and control; we got here because business bet wrong, brings up her economic plan

Edwards: states all economic growth is only in the largest/richest sector, middle class is financially insecure, appeals to Nevada specifically, then to everyone;

Obama: Ties lack of energy policy into financial crisis; talks about all the sun in Nevada -- subprime problem happened because there is no oversight,

You voted for bankruptcy bill, do you regret it?

Edwards: I regret it, ties bankruptcy problems to medical debt, launches into populist spiel... agrees with Obama about energy, talks about student loans

Clinton: She regrets her vote also; happy that it never became law; wants bankruptcy reform, references her economic plan, talks about the head of Countrywide's golden parachute; naked courting of minorities; states that we can't wait

Obama: I opposed them both, I thought they were bad ideas; agrees with Clinton for reform, references bill he submitted; cites lobbyists as problem... uses anecdotal story to reference his economic stimulace package

Middle class retiree how can you protect our income?

Obama: Middle class exemption for capital gains and dividends; speaks to his fairer tax plans, gives examples, cites uneven tax burden

Mentioned freezing interest rates; what are long term effects?

Clinton: wants to do it to match the ability to pay mortgage, references more of her economic plan

Two questions for each from everyone else...

Edwards - Campaign finance, asks to Med donations

Obama: States that small med donors are registered as med no matter what, cites his wide finance pattern and his law that gives some transparancy

Clinton - War in Iraq, private agreement from Bush to Iraq gov't, introduced a bill to congress to force Bush to come to congress-- Will Obama co-sponsor?

Obama: We can work on this issue, doesn't want next president's hands tied; talks about his opposition to the war and his plan to leave Iraq

Clinton & Edwards agrees with Obama's troop re-deployment

Obama: Corrects record on Iraq deployment question

Clinton: Continues states wild difference between Dems and Repubs

Edwards: Clairifies his position about all combat troops in the 1st year

Obama: asks for clairification

Edwards: says he would keep a force in Kuwait

Domestic issues

Too many poor and minority, statute that colleges need to have ROTC and room for recruiting stations, will you enforce that?

Clinton: Absolutely, lauds any national service; dengrates the Bush admins treatment of soldiers

Obama: Yes, states that rural communities are part of the uneven burden; thinks we need more troops to cut down fatigue; also speaks to need for non combat service

Edwards: Yes. speaks about homeless vets; and wants to take care of all vets and their retraining

Obama: speaks to failures of Bush admin, uses Walter Reed as an example

Clinton: agrees with others, brings up traumatic brain injury, refers to some of her legislation

Yucca mt Nuke storage

Obama: Vows to end it, doesn't want a situation that harms the people of Nevada

Clinton: I voted against it, held hearings about it... brings up one of Obama's benefactor as being pro-Yucca and Edwards' vote for it

Obama: His home state has many plants, but he's always been against it

Edwards: reiterates that he is against Nuke plants

Clinton: brings up his votes again

Edwards: repeats his access to the new information

New Nuke plants...

Obama: voted for it because of the large amount of clean fuel investment; if we can safely do Nuke pwr, we should, goes into carbon cap spiel

Clinton: attacks the bill, calls Cheney to attention said it was special intrest pork, references her economic plan, once again bashes Obama via 'hope' comment

Edwards: states Nuke is not the answer talks about other energy sources; references Clinton's largets share of money from those energy interests; wants to make the polluters pay; wants to stop the building of coal fired power plants

Clinton: references her energy plan, uses Apollo as example

Obama: says we should cut down our energy usage; we need to be more efficient, states that it is the easiest change

Immigration...

Edwards: We need to make a path to citizenship for the undocs, wants fines, wants them to learn to speak english with our help and that language should be a requirement

Clinton: Hispanic voters don't vote for Black people, says that it was a historical statement; feels there hasn't been enough minority discussion

Obama: is there a non-voting problem?; no, they voted for me (gets laugh), references his stand w/ McCain and Kennedy

e-mail question... What is the cause of Black male drop out rates

Obama: equates it with latino drop out rate; wants more early childhood education so that minorities don't start behind, segues into teacher stump speech; wants to have parents do their part in the process (calls out fathers specifically)

Clinton: wants to continue discussion, states that the family needs their tools, highlights her connections to the 100 Black Men

Edwards: wants universal pre-K

Gun deaths...

Clinton: says she is against illegal guns, she is a political realist; she cops out at the fed level, does want a 'working' registry (unclear at which institutional level) references VT killings, attacks illegal gun dealers

Obama: Doesn't think he can accomplish that, what he thinks he can do is crack down on gun dealers

Edwards: picks up Clinton's mention of assault weapons ban and also wants to reinstatement...

Playing the fear card...

Clinton: refuses to "characterize" her statement, stands by her opinion; says we don't talk enough about homeland security obliquely references 9/11 by stating she represents NY, says president needs to protect the US

Obama: states we have been dominated by a politics of fear; congratulates Clinton's work in NY; states that Clinton's statement was part of the politics of fear; talks about the drain on resources that Iraq has been and that it has diverted funds from our security says he will focus on the real dangers

Clinton: defends her statement again; attempts to conflate the fact that the PM was tested with the "fact" that the new president MAY be tested

You called Pakistan when Bhutto was killed, was that appropriate?

Edwards: what I said was tough: you have to continue the march to democracy, you must allow international investigators, the elections have to take place

Given the decision to run for president is important, when did you make it?

Clinton: New years, wants to be the problem solver

Edwards: December, the cause of his life middle class and low income families

Obama: December, he thinks that there is something he could provide that no one else can, the bringing together of divided peoples...

END
*******************************
Quick thoughts

Clinton continued to attempt to press Obama on issues, but widened her scope to include Edwards, courted the Hispanic vote
Edwards attacked Clinton back and illuminated some of the truths behind statements
Obama put more of his substance on the table, courted the Hispanic vote

Consider if you will...

2008-01-11T15:44:00.000-08:00

As the more rational people continue to point out; the three leading democratic contenders are the strongest candidates, and very little separates their policies. Since all of that is a wash; as much as you hate to admit it, if you're voting democrat, you're voting for style.

This is odd because our understanding of politics (especially in the light of the recent years of political failures) is that it is a SERIOUS THING.

With the parity of our leading candidates however, we're forced to focus on their minute differences and details; you know the superficial stuff. This is why we have intra-party political discussions that are eerily reminiscent of jr. high (also known as middle school in other places). Not surprisingly we get into extreme confrontations with our contemporaries (democrat/progressive/liberal/whatever you call it nowadays). So now we have a democratic voting bloc fractured into cliques, who wander the halls (of the internet and elsewhere) in bristling packs of insularity.

Why? Because nothing is worse than a heretic. Those people who almost agree with you. The alien mindset (in this case Republican) is written off as obviously wrong, an abstract evil to be confronted at a later date. Your fellows (in this case Democratic voters) are subject to acute, harsh, and intense criticism. Perhaps it arises from the staggering amount of commonalities that leave you frustrated that the others "get" so much of it and just happen to be "misguided" over that last bit of difference.

You can convince some of those people of the correctness of your understanding and you should, it's good politics; but hoping, wishing and working towards full unanimity in the party isn't democratic, it's fascist.

Just to make it official

2008-01-10T11:57:00.000-08:00

for the sight impaired...

Yes, I did...

Whew...

2008-01-08T21:46:00.000-08:00

I am obviously biased. I'm going to give you the following from my point of view. I can't give it to you from any other point of view (and you wouldn't be here if that didn't interest you in some way or another).

I watched both of the speeches. They were both essentially laundry lists of memes that have proven effective on the campaign trail that have resonated with the people. That's pretty much why you have the primary system it forces everyone to accumulate the ideas that the whole party finds important. Every candidate (even the republicans) has contributed to this aggregate of ideas.

But, the most powerful idea is the idea of change. We all know who gave birth to that meme. It's the ideological singularity of the entire election.

Many of the candidates have good ideas that's why they get assimilated readily, Barack's ideas don't get assimilated they assimilate other candidate's entire campaigns.

But back to the speeches.

Hillary's speech was made in an entirely different mode than her other speeches. She was forced to adopt a whole new style. That's what I remember, nothing specific. The meme birthed by her speech was "Hillary changed". That doesn't connect with me, it doesn't draw me in and make me think that she is going to turn things around.

Barack's speech was typical for him. I don't remember much of it either, but he co-opted and re-branded a GIANT meme. Yes We Can. Evokes images of Rosie the Riveter. You know, WWII and the empowerment of women. Not insignificant things in the mental history of the United States. That bagged me like Paula Patton posing as vice cop in a hooker sting outside of a Viagra study.

Shit yeah. We can do it. I'm sick of us not doing it. We can put our hands on the wheel and avoid the crash or just sit back and assume the airbags are working.

This is too good not to jack...

2008-01-07T19:48:00.001-08:00

I'll start you off with the beginning...

Future - Present - Past::Obama - Edwards - Clinton.

Future is to Present is to Past as
Leadership is to Lobbying is to Legislating.

DECLARATIONS

Leaders create the future. They bring it forth. They declare it. They speak, and in the moment of their speaking, the future is.

John F. Kennedy and we SHALL put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

In that moment, we "shall it," all of us, the entire country. Kennedy declared our future. He brought it forth. He languaged it. And as one, we moved forward to meet the challenge, more or less, together.

If you were alive July 20, 1969, and of a certain age and in the western world, you watched as Jack Kennedy's declaration unfolded. I was ten years old and I remember everything.

That's leadership in action. Leaders make DECLARATIONS.

Genuine declarations -- "Strike! Ball! Strike Three and you're OUT!" "Guilty" "By the authority invested in me by the State of Massachusetts, I now pronounce you husband and husband" -- are true in the moment they are said.

***
you can read the rest here

Democratic debate cliff notes

2008-01-05T19:47:00.000-08:00

6:10 PST: Richardson sigh... I wonder will people go all Gore on him?
6:11 PST: Ask a dictator to step aside? Right...

6:18 PST : the nuclear threat...
Edwards... retaliate, project strength & calm; don't go off half cocked...
Obama... retaliate, falls back to NPTreaty
Clinton... wants an office of NPT? bridges to Port Security; also retaliate, repeats the "no safe haven" doctrine
Richardson... rebuild and expand NPT (esp w/ Russia) bridges to climate and international threats and multilateralism

6:25 PST: domestic issues; Social Security/Baby Boomers start w/ Clinton vs. Obama
Clinton... uses campaign slogan "hard work for change"; suggests that Obama is a flip-flopper on health care
Obama... states consistency; describe difference between starting from scratch vs. adapting the current conditions| focuses on differences health care policies; suggests higher payroll taxes for Social Security;
Clinton... points out mandate for children as a flip flop
Obama... responds with children don't have choice
Clinton... more flip floppery accusations;
Obama... rejects the words Clinton is trying to place in his mouth
Edwards... draws parallels between himself and Obama; attacks Clinton for being the status quo
Clinton... falls back to hard work meme; accuses others of raising false hope
Richardson... get laughs w / hostage comment; pushes for positive discourse, defends experience to deflect anti-status quo comments, also falls back to experience argument
Edwards... goes populist and attacks the status quo as entrenched within framework of the system
Obama... wants to get the people involved with their own governance and that citizens should be able to hold the gov't responsible

6:41 PST: Iraq/surge
Clinton... reminds that the surge was for political solutions, and that all it has accomplished is military objectives, wants to bring the troops home
Richardson... states the policy is a massive failure, points to lack of political progress and casualties, links the Iraq adventure to failure of domestic policy
Obama... restates that we haven't accomplished anything and actually spent money to not accomplish anything, and attributes some of the success to Iraqi-Iraqi cooperation
Edwards... links the British withdrawal to reduction in violence continues to restate that we aren't accomplishing our political goals; no military bases
Richardson... says you have to get ALL the troops out, falls back to earlier position, pounds podium while discussing war fatigue
Clinton... states general agreement, wants diplomacy, states unpredicability of withdrawal, supports caution

7:00 PST: Doubleteam | experience vs. change
Clinton... gets laugh with 'hurt feelings' comment, falls back to ready on day one slogan; draws parallels between Obama and Bush's likeability; plays the gender card
Obama... claims to have been watching football during the republican debate, restates populist message, wants gov't transparency, encourages cooperation; derides republican playbook strategy
Richardson... falls back to executive experience and foreign policy experience, calls for an energy revolution, references Al Gore; states that youth isn't a detriment
Edwards... uses his parents hard working background, restates that he is seriously anti special interest / lobbyist, references the Paitent's Bill of Rights and death of Natalie in CA
Obama... points to his lobbyist reforms, falls back to citizen participation in gov't
Clinton... calls for a reality break, states that Edwards' bill was killed by the Pres., that Obama voted for a bill that incluided pork, and essentially asserts that they are all on the 'take', falls back on her husband's administration's accomplishments
Edwards... states that special intrests has a stranglehold on our democracy, says that you can't take their money and oppose them, uses Teddy R as example
Obama... credits Bill Clinton's accomplisments, restates that we had never formed a coalition and says that words do matter and that they can inspire
Richardson... picks up on Obama's cooperation meme and extends it, and says you can't fight everyone
Edwards... responds with the 'can't nice these people to death' meme

7:24 PST: Al Gore/carbon tax
Richardson... says that carbon tax isn't a mandate; suggests a cap as an alternative, claims that the tax would be passed on to the consumer; restates his desire for mass transit
Obama... also supports cap, states that it will also have a cost, but that we should use the revenue to aid the transition
Clinton... brings up the recession and it's accoutrements, states that the Bush tax cuts benefit the wealthy, wants to tax wealthy
Edwards... talks about uneven wealth distribution, states threat of job loss to middle class
Obama... extend uneven distribution to Clinton era, would give < $75,000 income tax relief

Richardson... falls back to executive experience, want to balance the budget, wants to get rid of corp welfare, want to invest in science and math and arts

7:35 PST: What do you wish you wouldn't have said?
Clinton... give non answer, states the difference between dem and rep agenda, and states that the dems are better to run the country
Richardson... fav SC justice, White wants to take it back
Edwards... Clinton fashion critique
Obama... endorses Clinton's answer

My quick remarks...

I was typing as I watched and eating dinner so there are probably typos, so what...

Clinton was obviously on the attack trying to get back her mojo.

Richardson was playing the role of Rodney King

Edwards is definitely tying himself to Obama as the package of change

Obama clarified his postions and essentially fought a defensive rearguard action. Not a bad showing.

Short update...

2008-01-03T20:46:00.000-08:00

Wow. Obama won in Iowa. I think I'm still reeling from the shock. Yeah, I support him, but like many black people it was a sort of guarded hope, because inside my calloused exterior I just had the feeling that "they" wouldn't really support a candidate of color. Of course it's only one state, and smart negative campaigners will attempt to swell (or create) any backlash or buyer's remorse.

Want an example? Of course you do. Count the number of times you hear this "reasonable" position...

Something like, "...but he can't win the south, they're too racist down there, and if he can't win the south then he can't win the election, so I can't vote for him, even though I really want to...".

I'm guessing mid 500's by November...

Back to the future...

I am ecstatic that the younger and progressive stay at home, arm chair pundits, got out of their coffee shops. I sincerely wish that this trend continues. We're the clowns that have to live the consequences of the ridiculous policies our government pursues. It's about damn time we influence the decisions that'll still be affecting us long after the status-quo'ers are in the ground.

If you missed it here's his victory speech...

For whom the voting tallies...

2008-01-02T12:36:00.000-08:00

Whom shall I support?

Well... actually no one yet, because I don't live in Iowa.

[O.K. smartass, but if you did live in Iowa, for whom would you vote?]

My mid year assessment wasn't that far off. I still like Obama better than Clinton, and I still think Edwards is campaigning by reflex... but I'm not answering your question.

So in order to go down in flames with my fellow prognosticators (why is that the synonym of choice when discussing this subject matter?), I will officially give a stamp of approval to one of the candidates.

I'm not going to vote for the winner of the primary if it is someone I don't like. I didn't vote for Kerry and I haven't ever voted republican in a national election. Every time I hear someone use the phrase '...throw my vote away...' I want to punch her in the face. (No I'm not a misogynist, but since we don't actually have a non-gender specific pronoun in English that I can correctly use there, I get to choose, and while the accepted practice is that the male pronouns are neuter; (a.) I like my junk, and (b.) the very hint of misogyny adds impact to my post… don't you hate being predictable?).

The very fact that you believe that you have to support the popular person means you don't understand what voting is about.

You vote for (in the United States) someone to represent you. You know, act as you would in a particular situation, and make choices that you would make or at least choices with which you'd agree. If you vote for the popular person even though they don't represent your positions YOU ARE REPRESENTING THEIR POSITIONS with your support.

Let's take an example:

Our domestic auto industry sucks. Why? Well, mostly because we no longer produce the best automobiles (or at least no one believes that we do, and in this country that's the same damn thing). How did this come to pass? I can't give you a perfect irrefutable answer to that question. I can give you a guide as to how it could occur...

You have two candidates running for office in the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet; one supports a self sufficiency and sustainability agenda the other one supports a global economic positive trade balance. Both are good positions and something any country would want for itself. It’s a tight race with both candidates scraping splinters off the bottom of the barrel. Strategy sessions on both sides run into the wee hours of the morning attempting to devise ways of achieving separation in the polls. One of the strategists has a brilliant stroke of insight. She’ll transmute the opponent’s campaigning strength into a weakness so that all of their campaigning will aid her side. She knows that everyone is attracted to new technology and no one likes to depend on others for their needs. She also knows that when new technology is created, old technology is phased out. During this transition period, some employees will not adapt to the new technology and are forced to seek employment elsewhere.

This campaign strategist has just drawn a (semi) plausible connection between new technology and job loss. Now if you vote for the other guy, you’re voting to lose your job or for other people to lose their job. The message is devastating and it appeals to the purveyors of current technology, who are willing to support continued reliance on their products, campaign contributions are just another operating cost for which they can use the ‘extra’ money they have now that they don’t have to invest so heavily in research and development.

The election goes to the ‘positive trade balance’ candidate. It’s not a landslide victory, but she wins and no matter that the entire campaign was evenly matched, the positions of the winner are associated with winning. In the next election cycle candidates remember that the guy who ran for new technology lost, so candidates who want to win run for ‘positive trade balance’. Project this behavior forward, and you now have a field of candidates who favor positive trade balance while anyone who goes against the Conventional Wisdom ™ [thanks Arianna], is ‘honored' with labels such as: unrealistic, inexperienced, naïve, or even the dreaded ‘fringe’.

If you’ve been paying attention you realize that almost 50% of the population was FOR new technology. By not voting for the candidates that supported their economic views, they’ve abdicated that position and now it lies down the slope of political will.

If people want to bring that issue back to light, they’ll have to do the hard work of pushing it into prominence. This is done by calling attention to the issue. Of course you need a voice to call; fortunately you’ve been provided with one… your vote.

Oh yeah, in case you were still wondering, I’d vote for Obama.

Bow your heads!

2007-12-22T16:07:00.000-08:00

This makes so much sense that it should disturb you if you're wandering around with some notion of moderate or 'modern' faith.

If The Trinity was altered thusly I would find myself saying, "At least they're honest about their cartoon hero worship."

Not that I'd respect your faith anymore than I do now, but it would at least have a decent internal consistency.

This vision is a grand synthesis that borders on the sublime. Like good art it inspires those who come in contact with it and as my gift to you, I'll share my inspiration with you.

When I first looked at this picture, I thought, "Wow, now that is a new low." Then I thought, "no... it actually makes perfect sense". Our society IS fueled by rote consumerism, a veneer of bootstrapped, externally enforced morality and the idea that our truth, justice and American way is mighty and invulnerable.

Then I noticed what this tripartite 'sun' was presiding over, a cemetery, and I was in love. The symbolism kicks you in the head like a donkey filled shotgun.

Let me give it to you:

The 'sun' of empty materialism, moralism and might cannot sustain the human race. If we continue to lay prostrate before our sun god, we shall come to enjoy the fruit of our devotion...

Extinction.

I don't be dumb...

2007-12-19T01:36:00.000-08:00

John Taylor Gatto has a book with some pretty interesting points to make about the U.S. public school system. It's called "Dumbing us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling". I like it and recommend it as it's a quick read, about 104 pages.

In his second chapter, The Psychopathic School, he gives a list of traits that all his students have, it's obviously meant to provoke rage and/or outrage, but I decided to answer it as if I took it seriously and he would read my response...

I suppose I can only answer what has been written about me by you, Mr. Gatto.

Namely that I was:

1. indifferent to the adult world

2. lacking in curiosity

3. possessed of a poor sense of the future

4. ahistorical

5. cruel to my contemporaries

6. uneasy with intimacy or candor

7. materialistic

8. dependent, passive and timid in the presence of new challenges

That’s a lot of name calling. I guess it was done as bait for responses. This tactic has failed in my case. Even though I find myself writing this, it is not truly of my own volition, I’m doing it to get a grade, so that I might end the cycle of debt in which I find myself firmly ensconced.

The reason that your invective couldn’t snare me is because of the sheer percentage of its inaccuracy. Applying those “standards” to myself, your aim doesn’t even compare favorably to blind fire. I’ll go through this with you step by step.

I was not indifferent to the adult world. As a child entering my K-12 experience in 1979, in Buffalo, N.Y. where the death of the steel industry meant that my father was “paying” our way by racking up obscene credit card debt while working at a car wash. I often intercepted the mail and pondered the same question I ask myself today, “Where is the money going to come from”? This happened so often that my mother took to hiding the mail from me, and netted me my first memorable lecture about how I should enjoy my childhood, and not be in a hurry to “grow up”. This was by no means the last lecture I would receive in that area, and like many other adults, there are many times that I wished I had followed their advice.

Had I been any curiouser, I doubt I would be writing this right now. In the seconds I took typing that sentence I thought of at least five near death experiences I had indulging my curiosity. Sure, you want an example, ok: I’m 12 or 13 and I’m on my first paper route and the street is adjacent to the Kensington expressway, and across from some sort of contractor supply store. I go across the street and amongst the trash and surplus castoffs I find a good amount of thick twine. I am amazed at how strong the stuff is, I pull, prod, bash, saw, and otherwise test it’s endurance to the limits of my abilities. But I’m frustrated by the pitiful amount of stress I can generate with my human body. Suddenly as if hit by a bolt of inspiration, I realize that tons of destructive potential were yards away from… the express way! All I had to do is lash the twine back and froth from the guard rail to the median and back, and I could see how many ‘loops’ I had to make to significantly alter traffic, brilliant! All I had to do is scale 18 foot embankment and time the highway speed traffic. Oh, I’d need both my hands for climbing, so in order to transport the twine to the top, I’d have to wrap it around my waist. I get to the top, avoid getting hit by any cars, and I made one loop. Eagerly awaiting a car I ran across the street to get a vantage point and the first car snapped the twine as if it wasn’t there. I repeated the experiment as I designed it, went back and did two, then three, then four loops with the same result. I think it was when I got to six or seven back and fort loops that I finally had my breakthrough… of stupidity. I was standing across the street admiring my handiwork, when finally a car that hit the twine slowed down noticeably. Unfortunately for me, in my excitement to climb down, and get to my viewing post, I had forgot to unwrap the residual twine from around my waist and the car didn’t break all the twine, it was being dragged, and as the excess line soon payed out, so was I. Across the street on my belly slamming into the wall, I was dragged straight up and over the lip, headfirst towards the ONCOMING TRAFFIC ON THE EXPRESSWAY. I was thinking, “this is going to be such a stupid way to die”, when about 18 inches, no more than two feet from the pavement with it’s accompanying high speed traffic, the twine finally snapped.

I think it is impossible to have a poor sense of the future when you and everyone you know are constantly saving for something. I actually think that is the difference between the lowest part of the middle class and the lower class; that hope and expectation that there is better to be had or earned. So, we were saving for school portraits or the camping trip, or whatever; you knew your actions today affected your opportunities tomorrow.

I don’t know how much a child below a certain threshold of understanding is supposed to sense or even know past predetermination. I do know that if you grew up as a minority, you were made painfully aware of the role the past played in your life. Why don’t I look like the white kids at school…Because their ancestors were too lazy to work for themselves… Where did all the Indians go…Their ancestors were killed by the same people who didn’t have time to work for themselves… Why did Amy’s parents tell her she couldn’t play with me anymore…Because they’re scared she might like you… Why can’t she like me, I like her, what’s wrong with that…Nothing's wrong with that, or you, something’s wrong with them. That last one is a question/response I went through in kindergarten.

All children are cruel to the extent that they are honestly competitive and honestly opinionated. Kids call spades, spades. They’ll tell you that you’re dirty, or that you smell ‘funny’, or that you wore those pants yesterday. If part of being civilized is knowing when to lie, then kids aren’t fully civilized. It’s learned behavior, and learning takes time. They’re minors and should have that level of responsibility.

As with the last charge, I’m not going to refute this one, but say that I do think children are candid (see my previous answer). As far as intimacy, I think true intimacy can only be achieved by post pubescent minds, once again, children aren’t fully civilized. Honestly, childhood is filled with seemingly arbitrary relationships for reasons that you poorly understand (go to school, go to church, go to ‘place X’... Why? ), the only people you could be said to have any intimacy with are your parents but since children don’t even see their parents as people but as immutable forces of nature, even that doesn’t count.

Materialism, like any behavior, is learned behavior. It is also simple behavior rooted in a simple concept, more. This means that it is easy to understand and copy, making it prime material for early adoption by developing minds. The problem isn’t learning materialism from society (it’s a sign of a good mind that can adapt to where it lives), but from not being taught that is primitive and not the ‘be all/end all’. Once again my background didn’t allow me to have a lot of things. This didn’t stop me from wanting lots of things. Oddly enough it was a TV show that my mother liked that soured me on the whole idea of acquisition for acquisition’s sake – Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. I would look at the diamond encrusted gold dog bowls, and think about how many months of rent that could pay or pencils it could buy, and think the dog doesn’t care as long as it gets fed, then I turned that thought on myself. It doesn’t matter what brand, as long as it performs the function it’s supposed to, and if I know the information, why does your opinion of my depth of knowledge matter (what letter you’ve decided to grade me)?

Timid, passive and dependent… Nah, wrong again John. You didn’t have time to be timid. Kids are competitive, remember? You didn’t want to be the last person to ‘get’ something, or you would’ve been exposed to some of that ‘cruelty’ that abounds within our hallowed halls for being ‘slow’. Passive and dependent can take the same hike – textbook completion. I always read ahead in the textbook, because I wanted to know more; that can’t be dependent, because that’s independent behavior. For the same reason it can’t be passive, because I was actively reading ahead into unassigned material with no prompting or even a syllabus telling me that I was going to need to read chapter whatever by some date.

This leads me to say that I wasn’t alienated at all, in any way that I felt was important at the time. In retrospect, I was alienated from the adults in the various schools I went to, not from myself or my contemporaries, or even the older or younger students. I think it’s funny because the reason I was alienated from my instructors (for the most part, there were a few good ones) was that they never asked for my input. All the instructors that I remember fondly are the ones who spoke to me and not at me. The teachers who correctly assumed I had a functional brain and that I might be interested in exercising it on occasion while in a place of learning.

My final topic is differentiation. I think any teacher worth the title can divide their classes into zones of aptitude. I experienced it in most of my K-12 career. The problem is what the teachers do, or even what they can do with that information. It seems that nowadays if you even have the appearance of unevenhandedness you’ll be crucified on the cross of the cookie cutter. Everyone knows that everyone isn’t the same, so you are going to have differences everywhere, even in the classroom. If Johnny consistently earns a C while Billy consistently earns an A that doesn’t mean that the teacher is mean or unfair, but societal pressure make it seem like that is the case. So the teacher has to go through this charade of equal treatment when it’s obvious that the two students need to be treated differently. The teacher, under considerable pressure not only to give grades, but give good grades while teaching only one curriculum can either fudge Johnny’s grades or fudge the whole course so that Johnny can earn at least a B. I can’t imagine a large number of teachers opting for the first option, but I do blame the latter option for some of our nation’s educational ineptitude.

Let's dust it off...

2007-11-07T11:23:00.000-08:00

More from my They're Just Like Us world tour...

Article Here

Hey, at least he bought the gun legally... right?

Of course he then proceeded to use it at school after posting to the internet at least twice what he might do with said firearm...

I'll leave it to y'all to go through the convoluted gun control vs. probable cause debate.

Another point of view.

2007-10-30T11:13:00.000-07:00

I've previously posted about white collar crime. This clip gives a different example of the ~~corporations~~ criminals and their representatives that run your government.

I personally find it hard to believe that people who often act against the common good themselves are capable of creating, executing, and judging rules that are supposed to enrich and sustain the common good.

Fresh from someone else's blog!

2007-09-23T12:09:00.000-07:00

Thanks Francis.

Discussion of the Decisions of the Appeals Court in State of Louisiana v. Mychal D. Bell (The Jena Six Case, Working Draft)

I think we're the frog.

2007-09-22T20:04:00.000-07:00

Many people have heard the story/parable about the putting a frog in boiling water (it jumps out) versus placing a frog in cool water and slowly heating it (it stays in and dies). It is a fable, and has been shown to be false. If the story or its debunking are unfamiliar to you, use "the Google".

I'm not going to (re)^(umpteenth)-tread the 'U.S. public as frog', 'insidious forces that are eroding our "inalienable rights" as boiling water' analogy, it's been done to death and really, Doin' it to Death is the purview of James Brown.

"But you said we were the frog, now you're not going to speak on that? Where is our 'funky good time'?"

Keep reading.

There is no frog. A lot of people have heard of the frog, people use the frog to get still more people to agree with them about certain issues, and the frog gets a new group of people to disseminate it into yet more minds. But the frog is a story that's false. That is why we're the frog.

There is no us (or U.S.). A lot of people have heard of us, people use us to get still more people to agree with them about certain issues, and we get a new group of people to disseminate us into yet more minds. But we're a story that's false.

What?!

Go back to school (no, really, go learn more; but for now, keep reading) in your mind. Hopefully around the sixth grade and through the rest of grade school (12th grade) you started learning how the U.S. government works. For this section I'm not going back before sixth grade because the 'information' you receive prior can essentially be boiled down to 'we kick ass' and 'we're the good guys'. You start learning about the three branches of government, separation of powers, bicameral legislature, The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, etc... The further you go the more technical the analysis becomes. At some point you get into the Supreme Court cases, you hold mock trials. If you're really fortunate you have class projects that require you to construct a new government and write a new Constitution.

These activities really impress upon you the scope and vision of the people who encoded our laws. They also leave you with a positive feeling that gives you a pseudo-logical reason for accepting your pre-sixth grade conditioning.

Then you are exposed to how our government works in real life. Hopefully you found it abhorrent. I know I thought, "What happened to the graceful execution of reasoned judgment and conflict resolution, or the sense of the historical ramifications of action or inaction?"

On the one hand you have what you've been taught and what you've learned about us, on the other you have what you see us doing.

On the one hand you have the frog that stays in the pot to die, on the other hand you have the frog that jumps out no matter how gradually you heat the water.

Not quite the same image, huh?

.
.
.

Our progenitors were not deific paragons of perfection, they: kept human slaves, actively or passively committed genocide, allowed the robber barons to defraud their way into wealth, and a host of other crimes great and small. Yet, whenever we were at our most tawdry and tarnished, there always seemed to be some person or process that buffed us back into some semblance of luster. Can you imagine the 10th congress spending their time as the 110th congress does?

We might be out of polish.

...

No more “time outs”.

2007-09-04T23:35:00.000-07:00

First off let me say what I mean by, “time outs”. I’m talking about the process of argument suppression in which one party claims that a discussion is getting too intense and then asserts that stopping the discourse is the only reasonable option. This includes the ‘no religious/political discussion’ rules that you see in different venues (think: your local pub), and the similar conventions (WILLINGLY!) observed at ‘polite’ events and dinner tables all across America (and possibly other earthly places).

We are given this ‘wisdom’ from an early age in the form of admonishments such as: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, keep it to yourself”, “I’m not going to argue this with you”, “don’t waste your time with them because they don’t understand”, etc…

This variety of politeness is poisonous. It retards the development of two important life skills: the ability to discover the truth (or at least some reasonable facsimile) through group and/or co-examination of data, and social reconciliation/tolerance/understanding of those who don’t mimic you exactly (you will find this group includes every other human).

What kind of society can you build with a population of socially retarded social primates? A broken one. What kind of government will such a society have? A broken one.

If you never learn how to disagree, you never learn how to compromise. If you never learn how to compromise, then you, by default, live in a, “my way or the highway”, totalitarian reality. We’ve previously visited the polarized mindset so I’ll not repeat that. I’ll just ask, if you live in a totalitarian reality, how could you let anyone else live any other way? You can’t. You’ll either vote for people who represent your totalitarian views, or, if you’re FORTUNE(ate) [yeah I’m saying if you’re wealthy enough] to be in a position to actually dictate policy, you’ll attempt to make manifest your totalitarian reality.

While that concept doesn’t fit your image of a democracy, a republic, or even a democratic republic, I bet it does fit various Democratic and/or Republican agendas you’ve witnessed and experienced.

Now, ask yourself again why our legislature (really our government as a whole) can continuously fail to enact even the simplest and most obvious courses of positive action.

And now for something completely different...

2007-08-21T15:05:00.000-07:00

...if you're going to be off topic, do it with the correct intro...

TEN THINGS I LIKE ABOUT ME:

My infomania.

Yes, I abso-fuckin'-lutely HAVE to know... EVERYTHING

My memory capacity.

Have to put all the info somewhere

My reading speed.

I need to know everything, RIGHT NOW!

My imagination.

Fueled by my infomania, enhanced by my memory

My ability to problem solve.

Usually compensates for errors in judgement;

aided by the aformentioned mental traits

My verbal communication ability.

Defending my mental territory since MCMLXXIV

My ability to seemingly seamlessly incorporate new experiences with little apparant reaction.

Be suprised, keep your sense of wonder, just don't let them know;

also known as the New York shrug

My level of discernment when adopting new friends.

This is the family YOU CHOOSE, get it right

My silly super metabolism.

Allows me to eat 22 oz. T-bone steaks in a single bound;

also allows me to survive 25 and a half hour bouts of St. Patrick's Day celebration

The strange tiny blond hair I have on various parts of my body.

Yep, I'm a mutt

I hate fake "progress".

2007-08-17T07:54:00.000-07:00

A weeks worth, enjoy.

Section A:

Stop reading this. I'm anti-semetic.

anti- :
anti- or ant-
pref.
1.
1. Opposite: antimere.
2. Opposing; against: antiapartheid.
3. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.
4. Destroying: antiaircraft.
5. Inverse: antilogarithm.
6. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.
2.
1. Inverse: antilogarithm.
2. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.

Semetic:
adj.
1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures.
2. Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.
n.
1. The Semitic languages.
2. Any one of the Semitic languages.

Wait, I'm African, Yemeni and Saudi (as well as whatever else), and I LOVE me (and was in love with some other fellow Semites). I guess I'm pro-semetic.

pro- :
pro- 1
pref.
1. Acting in the place of; substituting for: proform.
2. Supporting; favoring: prorevolutionary.

Too bad, no easy pigeonholing here. I tell you what I am though. I'm anti-asshole.

Article here.

Let's go for this quote:

“The Americans demanded from Sharon contiguity for a Palestinian state,” said Shaul Arieli, a reserve colonel in the army who participated in the 2000 Camp David negotiations and specializes in maps. “This road was Sharon’s answer, to build a road for Palestinians between Ramallah and Bethlehem but not to Jerusalem. This was how to connect the West Bank while keeping Jerusalem united and not giving Palestinians any blanket permission to enter East Jerusalem.”

I'll take unmitigated gall for $400 Alex. Blanket permission? I'm seriously laughing at the multifaceted absurdness of that statement. The sheer incredulity it causes would destroy a sublimely logical mind. It takes a lesser (as the Architect would say) mind to really savor the reality dissonance that quote contains. I, luckily, am made of sterner stuff (I can neither confirm nor deny the the five minutes of seemingly lost time nor the puddle of drool next to my keyboard directly after I read that quote).

As a service to Americans everywhere I shall describe this via (everybody's favorite!) an automobile analogy.

It would be like the person who carjacked you being forced by the corrupt beat cop to give you a ride to somewhere that was already on the carjacker's path of travel AND listen to him complain about it while trying to avoid taking you at all, then having him drop you off six miles away from your destination because, "...hey, it's better than nothing".

I mean it would make sense if it were possible to get 500+ years of hero worship out of decimating TWO CONTINENTS worth of indigenous peoples... oh, um... hold up;

what I meant was if you could be lauded for you peace efforts because you sat down with a bunch of people and divided up land you didn't own so you wouldn't kill each other while pillaging said territories... uh, no;

well I could see if the wisdom that declared that all mankind had certain inalienable rights also decided to to place the capital of this new country in a region that claimed that certain people were in fact not people (although this region [and pretty much the populace of the whole country] was agrarian enough to know the relationship between a horse, donkey and mule), but paradoxically pierced their own deception enough to demand that these non people be given partial (3/5) voting status... wait... damnit...

...then shit, I've got nothin'. Maybe we should cut Israel some slack.

Fuck that.

Section B:
Article here

This is how the pitch conversation should have gone:

Let me get this straight. You are having problems with student performance and student integration. Well we need to fix that. What? You've got it? A solution? Good! What is it? You want the kids to pick a major? What the fuck does that have to do with the fucking problem?! Get out of my office before I shoot you in the face with a brick gun.

Haven't I already visited the education issue? Well actually, yes. Good, I can skip the background and get right to the point. I thank my stupidly broad and seemingly useless base of knowledge everyday. Why? Because it provides me with a large enough view of the world to see how certain things are related, interconnected, and influenced by other things. This allows me to be better at doing the things that I actually like (and/or that earn me [and via my enhanced productivity, my employer] money). I can adjust for outside influence by anticipating interference and preparing countermeasures or designing to take advantage of beneficial influences. So, for example, if I make boxes, I might understand how the price of tea in China might affect my cardboard supply so that I might choose my building materials appropriately.

Seriously, who needs adaptive, innovative, responsive employees here when you can get the cheap (soon to be absolutely better) foreign version. Now go sit down and watch TV with your kids so y'all can learn something.

Section C:

Remember how the United States Senate had an all-nighter recently? I do. Let me recap for you. The MAJORITY (not 60 or 67, but 53ish) basically said, "let's get the fuck out man". The minority responded, "...you're defeatist, you're going to cut and run, and a bunch of Bizzaro world's other greatest hits". But the war supporters had a new phrase/idea (it's a shame when your ideology is your phrasebook), it was essentially, "What's the hurry? Petraeus is going to give us a report in September and that's not long, surely we can be rational, responsible adults and wait until then". Stupidly (I know that is shocking to people who have been watching the GOP) they argue for more time to 'let the surge work', while simultaneously saying that the amount of time involved is so minuscule that nothing will change during it. I know, take a moment to yourself............................................ So, here we are ONE month later and we find out that the Petraeus report that we were going to find under our pillow if we were good little boys and girls, is just as real as the tooth fairy. I know you can't believe it. Read for yourself. Of course this would be a problem for normal people, but this crowd has the 'Reality? Bah, we just make up shit as we go along...' mindset, so their response was normal (for them). The White House came out and said that they were ALWAYS going to write the report, and that they were going to get INPUT from Petraeus. Yep, we're waiting an insignificant amount (I mean it's only human life and suffering and our national treasury hemorrhaging into the sands and streets of Iraq) of time for a report from people down the street. I must say I love the "CEO" White House, it's as productive and efficient as any other business run by GW.

What is it with the labels?

2007-08-09T14:23:00.000-07:00

Article here.

I'm not going to say much on the efficacy of torture. If torture is for you then you ultimately believe that only the strong should flourish and that the only victims are people who can't adequately defend themselves. Really, to you they aren't even victims, they're just weak. So you should just quit your job and stay home to keep the next person with an itch from killing your kids, looting your property, and enslaving your significant other. What do you mean, "How am I supposed to earn a living"? And now you realize that that isn't a theory of society, it's a theory of anarchy.

Hey, it worked for the Mongols, go get yourself a horse.

Nope, the things in the article that I am highlighting are these quotes (my emphasis added):

“I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”

"The utter isolation of these detainees has been described as essential to America’s national security."

“Had that happened, I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people.”

“The Proud Murderer of 3,000 Americans.”

"Until 2002, when Bush Administration lawyers asserted that waterboarding was a permissible interrogation technique for “enemy combatants,” it was classified as a form of torture, and treated as a serious criminal offense."

“I can respect people who oppose aggressive interrogations, but they should admit that their principles may be putting American lives at risk.”

"But the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program, Senator Levin said, has undermined the public’s trust in American justice, both here and abroad."

"He really believed in American principles."

All of the bolded items mean the same thing. Human. Go ahead, I'll wait, do the substitutions yourself... [Jeopardy think/wait theme music]

...see, told ya.

I guess I'm anti-U. S. A. now because I don't hold our lives as intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's. Hopefully I'll get to skip the C.I.A. world tour because I'm not a high quality asset. I'd probably go directly to Gitmo; do not due process, do not collect habeas entitlement.

It's weird, I could go all Vonnegut on you and talk about false karass, but we all know the various histories of divide and conquer; from the first religions of the multitudinous "chosen peoples", through Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, various inquisitions, the conquistadores (probably also known as "explorers" in you children's text books), and the latest hip, new, old fashioned genocides, to the latest "corporate rewards" programs.

It's like a 'backdoor' some programmer left in our minds. Put in the "T.H.E.M." [*] access code and we'll do whatever you want. [* The Hated External Menace]

It actually might be some left over hard wired proto-simian response to group threats. Well, we can't beat that can we? We'd better. We left behind (and some of us were left behind) or re-purposed other primitive responses that were antithetical to modern living. We just need to get our dumb asses to realize that our group is the human group.

Yeah all of us. I know we aren't some homogeneous blend of person. I don't know about you, but I never met the average guy. Yeah, we're all different and large swaths of humanity have similar traits that make it easy to lump into a broad category. Fine, humans tend to think categorically. Just don't forget the root of your categories. They are categories of PEOPLE. You know, like you, you're a people (yes that was on purpose).

Republicans are people.
U.S.ers are people.
Hockey players are people.
Somalis are people.
Cambodians are people.
Yo momma is people.

You get the damn point.

In this case we are being divided and conquered to empower the military industrial complex. Why do we foot the bill and watch other people benefit more than we do? I don't know about you, but when was the last time you paid someone to not do what you needed them to do?

It's called the military industrial complex, so why don't we make the military, I don't know, industrious and complex?

Oh, right they're not in the business of building nations. Then what the hell is the Army Corps of Engineers all about? Oh, well, um...

Government for the people, by the people, remember? Their job is what we say it is. If I have to be a citizen of The United States, a subsidiary of The People's Republic of China (or Japan, but they don't have the population or military) , I'd at least better have a viable infrastructure, decent, nah, fuck that, good public schools, non-poisonous food, water and air, and fucking dental (actually whole body health care, but 'dental' struck me as funnier). What the fuck are we buying?

I'm doin' stuff...

2007-08-05T15:52:00.000-07:00

... so I'll repost an excerpt of my musings from elsewhere.

"...Black people, as I know them, are all individually excellent (at something or other) mostly because our background tends to make us dig down deep within ourselves and pull forth whatever it is that you can excel at and be twice as good at just to get by on average. That sort of crucible creates a sort of inward focus; because no one can help you with you. There really is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path and all the well meaning advice in the world will fail to be fully adaptable to your exquisitely specific life situation. So, you unleash your talent(s) on the world with the knowledge that it was really you that enabled you. This also tends to explain our collective exuberant confidence, because you know exactly what you can do and within your purview of skill no one on earth can deny you. This also generates our 'it's me against them' mindset.

I think the underlying cause is cultural. We tend to come from cultures that exult and revel in individual skill. We all know growing up that if you can be in the top percentile of anything, YOU will be respected in your community. Look at a lot of European cultures and Japanese culture which had lengthy histories of feudalism. The social class table was set, your advancement was primarily predicated by those ranking above you. If you wanted to succeed in those societies you got good at pleasing your superiors who had the power to lift you out of the muck in which you dwelled. They, and their ancestors, knew that if you can be useful to the rulers you will get advanced in social status, and YOUR STATUS will be respected in the community. This is also known as the 'good soldier' mindset.

Am I saying that (recently) African descended people aren't loyal or that Europeans can't be individually brilliant, no. I'm saying our cultures shape us to strive for betterment differently..."

P.S. You could obviously also apply this to any oppressed/suppressed group... I'm black, so when I talk about repression I usually talk about black people (that whole I have personal experience thing I suppose).

Why just export the good stuff?

2007-08-04T20:55:00.000-07:00

Part three in my "they're just like us" foreign tour.

Part 1

Part 2

I honestly didn't think I was going to write today. I mean come on, I made it all the way to the Australian news sites with nary an (I must speak on this) itch. Silly me.

I have no idea how long this link will last; they took it off of YouTube. (Wonder why?)

Here is the article.

Now how much of this is alcohol fueled stupidity and how much of this is people actually seeking to emulate idiots from another hemisphere, I couldn't tell you. I must admit, they do seem to have mastered the idiot part of the equation.

Unfortunately this is not the only case of KKK fanboi-dom to come out of Australia.

or how about this

I could keep linking, but you get the point.

We've got "neo"-Nazis here, they've got KKK wannabes there. I suppose if we settle Mars, there'll be a race (pun intended) to see who gets the honor of being the first cultural 'Neo'-anderthal.

For a species whose rank and file members largely frown upon education via historical reflection, a lot of folks seem to want to live in the past.

There aren't always two sides.

2007-08-02T18:50:00.000-07:00

This has been an effective 'debate' tactic for too long. It crops up everywhere people are discussing anything. The problem is once again rooted in the misapplication of folk wisdom. I'm referring to the adage that states there are two sides to every story. It's easy to remember, puts a dose of caution in you when you listen to other people, and it can be good advice. Like all wisdom though, it breaks down if you take it literally. It is really meant to remind you that you might want to rely on more than one source of information to guide your decision making process. Well, that is good advice. What's wrong with that? Nothing, unless you take it literally. By taking it literally you make it possible to lock yourself into a simplified worldview. Once you put on those polarizing lenses, everything looks like: career or family, patriotism or treason, good or evil, happiness or wealth, black or white, us or them.

So, these people with their simple worldview and visions of false dichotomies dancing in their heads have opinions and naturally share them with others. As long as people agree, everything is fine, but if you disagree watch out! You can't have a different opinion from them. You're either right or you're wrong, for them or against them, a team player or a God Damned Individual. If you are lucky, they like you and will attempt to amend your wrongheaded thinking. You'll have discussions and if they can't personally sway you, they'll give you literature, take you to meetings, or otherwise bring you into contact with more proponents of their outlook. Unfortunately for them, their limited worldview tends to make their 'philosophy' shallow and circular, so you really just end up recycling the same few discussions. At some point they'll get frustrated with your (what?!) stubbornness and call you close-minded. If you're really lucky, before they turn on you, they'll paraphrase their error to you by telling you that you are being unreasonable and that you shouldn't even argue about it anyway because you wouldn't understand until you saw it their way.

Life is neither fair nor binary.

There isn't always another side to a story, and I don't need the 'other' side of the story if that 'side' is invalid. If I catch you stabbing an infant in the chest with a rusty screwdriver am I supposed to take a reflective pause and hear your side?

The truth is that:

There are as many sides of a story as there are witnesses and opinions.
You can have your career and family in any mix that you can personally tolerate.
There are many degrees of loyal citizenship between patriotism and treason.
Good and evil are not absolutes, actions are. The judgements of, and rationalizations of; said actions are opinion.
Wealth and happiness have the relationship you choose for them to have in your life.
There are a multitude of tones and colors outside of black and white.
Us and them are plural pronouns which, by definition, "have a very general reference"; so we're back to opinion.

300,000,000 people can't be wrong, can they?

2007-08-01T21:24:00.000-07:00

Read this.

"...I came here in peace, seeking gold and slaves...."
-- quote from article

Now, as funny as that was (maybe not to you, but now you can at least go write in your blog about how I'm stupid I am) doesn't it seem that if you gather a large enough group of people they tend to "think" and behave in this manner? Why is that? Is it a function of that neatly nebulous phrase we use to describe ourselves, "human nature"?

Is it cultural? If so, which culture? Why is the mob mind so base and puerile?

This sentiment is borne out in oft repeated statements such as: "I like persons, but I hate people", "I like Americans, but I hate America", "Saleem is ok, but the rest of those Muslims are terrorists", etc...

Could this be the root of all the negative stereotypes ever attributed to any group? Think about it. Large groups tend to adopt this '...and together we'll form, the moron!...', mentality. Historically, people didn't move around alot so populations were pretty homogeneous. Explorer/trader, 'Y', experiences group idiocy in the far off land of X, upon his return to 'civilization', he reports that the X-landers are idiots because of reasons one, two and three. We all know how rumors work so I'll leave you to fill in the rest.

The historical trend seems to be that group think levels out at the least common intellect. I'd be willing to bet that this was why the Founders (of the U.S.) sought to protect us from the "tyranny of the masses".

But how do you get the herd all mooing (moving) in the same direction? This article might provide some insight. (The text of the article that this article referenced is at the bottom of the post.)

Ok, we tend to emulate the choices of others. But, if the simple minds drive the conversation, how do their ideas gain support? Here's some heavy reading in that direction:

PDF

HTML

That was long, but the key points were simple. Repetition from one and/or many and ease of recognition. Let's make a construct with this information.

Given the following:

Everyone can count,
Counting is easier than adding,
Adding is easier than subtracting,
Subtracting is easier than multiplying,
Multiplying is easier than dividing,
Dividing is easier than exponents,
Exponents are easier than algebra,
Algebra is easier than geometry,
Geometry is easier than trigonometry,
Trigonometry is easier than calculus,
People prefer difficult math that they can handle,
Math below algebra is number math,
other math is abstract math.

Let's use math type as a popularity contest in a population with a normal distribution of intellect (try using everyone you've ever met as an example). For me, pretty much everyone I've ever met (that was of an age to have had access to this information) could divide. However when I get to exponents my population experiences a large drop off, this continues up through calculus. So the majority of my population can accomplish counting through division. This makes them less familiar with exponents and 'higher' maths. Now when I hold the, "Which type of math is most fun?" contest the weight of my population is going to exclude every math beyond division as a top contender.

The people beyond division are going to pull everyone up, but the people who can't divide are going to pull everyone back down. This means that number math wins by default.

There isn't really enough data to say which math would actually win, but it is likely that an explorer to this math country, upon returning home, would report, "They're a bunch of dividers that don't understand abstract math".

You've seen this in the election cycles for years. One candidate will repeat an oversimplified non-plan regarding some issue over and over which then filters through the populace and is repeated by the populace thereby enforcing itself. Whereas his opponent will give a nuanced plan that completely describes how to actually remedy the issue, but it goes over the heads of many of the possible 'repeaters' within the populace and thus fails to penetrate the populace's collective psyche.

Is public opinion worthless? I don't think so, but I have illustrated a way in which it is easily duped.

Referenced article.

If you or your organization has a pay login in you can do more reading here.

See, this is that bullshit....

2007-08-01T00:08:00.000-07:00

... I've been talking about.

Article here.

Three billion?! Are you fucking serious?!

Come on. Witnesses couldn't be compelled to testify? The only reason they couldn't is because you didn't let the cats missing some of that THREE BILLION DOLLARS do the compelling. I know I'd be convincing if I needed to find out about my money.

Let James run some kids' pockets on 3rd and Broadway and let the police pick up a suspect (doesn't really matter if its James or not). Someone is going to do some time somewhere.

Mandatory minimums for white collar crime.

Mandatory minimums for white collar crime.

Mandatory minimums for white collar crime.

If you have to, sell it to your gov't as, "The War on Graft (TM[pending])".

Maybe their love of animals will make them reconsider.

2007-07-31T10:38:00.000-07:00

Article here.

We all know the exalted status animals have in the eyes of the public (at least the segment that makes themselves heard). So, why not take a "compassionate" conservative (if you can read or write that without snickering you need to replace your irony module) play and stop appealing to logic and commonsense. We all know they want to build a 700 mile fence along a 2100 mile barrier (um... what?), and the Great Wall DID NOT stop China from being invaded (just couldn't compete with the wonders of mammal technology).

So lets tell 'em to do it for the animals. Create one of those wonderful 'wedge issues' and call the fence builders anti-animal and such.

It's working against Vick...

More bittersweet tales from the cradle of Humanity.

2007-07-31T09:39:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not going to argue with you if you think that people were magically placed on this world and built up the population through incest.

Kenyan Farmers’ Fate Caught Up in U.S. Aid Rules

By CELIA W. DUGGER

Published: July 31, 2007

A small change in American legislation could allow the U.S. to buy food in Africa to feed the famished there.

Article here.

More proof against that lazy African myth. These people died while they built their own infrastructure. I am proud of their achievement and pissed off that one of the biggest obstacles they had to overcome was caused by a bureaucratic technicality mostly caused by U.S. people demanding to turn a profit on corn that we (U.S. taxpayers) helped them grow in the first place. What is this obsession with something for nothing? They did what you asked, and you still found a way to punish them for it.

I'm glad they got it together and can help people even worse off than they are. I bet you they don't have some arcane system for their charity; probably, 'oh you need food, here you go'.

The article writer did a good job so I don't really have more to add. I do like the usage of the fish parable. Too bad people here resist this common sense as if the parable instead stated, "Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life".

How hard is it to realize if you help people get their own, then at some point you won't have to help them (in that way) anymore.

Unless of course, it benefits you to have people unable to do for themselves...

The more it seems different, the more it stays the same.

2007-07-29T19:28:00.000-07:00

Premier’s Party Suffers Big Defeat in Japan

By NORIMITSU ONISHI

Published: July 29, 2007

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed that he would not step down after his Liberal Democratic Party was routed today in elections.

Article here.

Apparently part two of my "they're just like us" foreign government tour.

You can see part one here.

You'd have to be armless with a degenerative nervous condition to not be able to draw the parallels here. Let's go through some anyway.

Formely popular head of government, check.

Party to which he belongs loses long held legislative majority, check.

Enacted over reaching programs to combat non-existent problems in schools, check.

Militaristic ambition, check.

Bucks time worn traditions regarding failure, check

Gutted national retirement fund, check.

Attempt to swindle people with electronic voting, check.

As an aside, even the Japanese, who make voting machines for other countries and have a history of adroitness with all things technological, have an aversion to using voting machines in national elections.

Pursuit of nationalist agenda, check.

Let's talk about patriotism and nationalism for a minute. Most people would think that they are synonyms, and those people would be wrong. A patriot, as you will note in the definitions linked, is defined by love and defense of his country and individual rights. A nationalist, as you will see in the definitions linked, is defined by a support of strong central government and promotion of the nation over the rest of the world's interests (it's also interesting to note that it is an obsolete usage of patriot.

I'm a patriot, not a nationalist. Nationalism smacks and reeks of facism (e.g. the National Socialist German Workers Party [Nazi]).

Who's ever heard of a fascist democracy?

It seems like we're running headlong into the Dark Ages.

2007-07-28T17:50:00.000-07:00

Certain Degrees Now Cost More at Public Universities

By JONATHAN D. GLATER

Published: July 29, 2007

School officials admit they are queasy about a practice that appears to value one discipline over another.

Article here

Now I happen to like the apprentice system for many fields of endeavor, but the modern educational system is based on the idea that education for it's own sake is a good
thing. You don't go to school to get a job, you go to school to learn. Of course, that idea, as so many others, has been co-opted by the Profit Motive (no I'm not a communist you simple minded label spewing fool).

I'm about to go back to school (really couldn't afford it the first go round [probably still can't]) and I know I am hyper sensitized to any cost. Now on top of all the other opportunity costs I have to weigh if my major is too (potentially) lucrative for me to afford to study it. Anybody besides me thinking of the Mascot chapter in the Autobiography of Malcolm X where Mr. Ostrowski says:

"Malcolm, one of life's first needs is for us to be realistic. Don't misunderstand me, now. We all here like you, you know that. But you've got to be realistic about being a nigger. A lawyer -- that's no realistic goal for a nigger. You need to think about something you 'can' be. You're good with your hands--making things. Everybody admires your carpentry shop work. Why don't you plan on carpentry? People like you as a person -- you'd get all kinds of work."

Now replace that word nigger with the phrase 'poor person'. In the good 'ol U. S. of A., where people used to come because they knew they'd be leaving the strict class structures of the Old World behind them, we now functionally limit not only what you can actually do by your resource access, but also what you can know.

All you need now is the ongoing collapse of 'Net Neutrality' to reach it's conclusion and then you'll have a system where you have to indenture yourself just to get the opportunity to better yourself by indenturing yourself some more. You remember how people who wanted to learn how to read had to basically join a monastery or be born into the nobility. I'll let you sit back and contemplate all the achievements during that period of history... 1... 2... 3... ok you're done.

It's easy to deride the phrase 'knowledge is power', but all throughout history the people 'in the know' ran everybody else. A flawed counter argument might run along the lines that scientists and other educated folk work for the people who have money. This is true, but keep going; ask and answer the question 'what is money'? It is a TOOL used to represent worth in trade. What does it represent? Well really, nothing. It used to at least be worth gold, which has always been pretty much tradeable to any non-starving non-thirsty human for something else, but it's not even that now. Now who controls the money? Not you, not me, not even the government, really. It's mostly rich people born into already wealthy families who have, over time LEARNED, how to manipulate the system and build a positive feedback cycle the sustains and enriches them. It sounds just like the concept of nobility, right? Bloodlines controlling massive conglomerations of capital. Meet your new princes and princesses. It's a nobility built on the understanding of shaping of finance, their knowledge empowered them.

How would knowledge help you here? A good question because at this point it would essentially take everyone turning their back on currency as we know it. Sounds easier to go along to get along, that's fine as long as you willingly choose to enrich others with your labor. You could go radical and go, 'off the grid', demand to be compensated in trade, or try to vote to get your country to take control of it's own finances. The thing is if enough people take any option other than the status quo the system would have to change, at very least forcing the vultures to learn new rules to manipulate. Even a minimalist cynic can see if properly manipulated this could be your window to break through to their side of the equation. That's real capitalism. King of the mountain being played and won by the hungriest and most capable, not this slow dance of upward accumulation to which we're all currently yoked.

The banality of evil.

2007-07-27T18:43:00.000-07:00

Article here.

I know what they are doing, kicking people off of voter rolls. By people I mean people who realize that republican government tends to fuck up their lives and livelihoods. When you read the 'back and forth' in the e-mails you realize it isn't some white and crimson caped individuals in a field of burning crosses. It's just Bob the middle manager processing some data. It's all so ho hum. A countrywide hijacking of folks voting rights handled like a seasonal merchandising campaign. All the death, sweat and blood of revolution undone by a listserv.

I think that's why white collar crime, even though it tends to be more destructive, is just overlooked by everyone. It's not dramatic enough. Kevin shoots up a corner store and makes off with $47, it's splashed all over the local news like the Next Coming. Mark embezzles $47 million from a pension fund and you'd be lucky to see it on page one and even then it'd probably only warrant a single column under the local team's box score.

People tell me the the masses don't think abstractly. My question is what in the hell is so abstract about your right to vote or how your tax money is spent? Why wouldn't you care? That is some abstract, no fuck that, that's some alien shit to me. Individuals determine what their interests are, so if you don't care about the sheer amount of money being spent (or should I say wasted) in Iraq it's not because Iraq is abstract it's because you don't care.

No, I'm not an elitist. I don't think I'm better than you because I care. I think everybody cares, but they care about themselves more. Honestly, I care more about myself than about some other person I never met. I also realize since we all live here and share the same basic language, laws and taxes (unless you're rich, and in that case you're not really the target audience anyway) what effects you will ultimately affect me. It costs me to have you over in Iraq, it costs me when you come back maladjusted to society, it costs me to pay your Veteran's benefits. If I care about me (which I do), I have to care about you. This pretty much goes for everybody.

Some dogs may or may not have died due to Vick's involvement, and while this does cost me, it doesn't cost me umpteen BILLION dollars, so my focus isn't there.

Can you say, "Press Gang"?

2007-07-26T12:45:00.000-07:00

First of all, a bit of history...

Company homepage

I think we should table the 'War on Drugs', not because of it's wasteful ineffectiveness, but to stock our growing prison/industrial complex with fresh trained talent from the private sector. Really, why hold yourselves back? With the influx of credentialed individuals you could greatly diversify your business presence. No longer limited to general labor, you could move out into corporate espionage, insider trading, pseudo-legal racketeering and money laundering, etc... The sky is the limit, but only if you get them prosecuted. Act now! Don't be the first prison to miss out on this veritable smörgåsbord of elite criminalized talent.

Remember that?

2007-07-26T11:24:00.000-07:00

Simpsons win over Kenyan carvers

By Muliro Telewa
BBC News, western Kenya

A group of carvers in western Kenya are looking forward to the first Simpsons movie hitting big screens around the world, even though they are unlikely to see it.

Article

I have an interest in Kenyan news (as I was given this name by my Kikuyu friend).

I really posted this here to illustrate what 'soft power' is. The United States used to possess a silly ridiculous amount of the world's soft power, especially after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Our idiots in charge can't comprehend that we already had what they wanted; we were relatively secure and had the ability to influence world events in our favor.

What we didn't export physically was more than compensated by our worldwide cultural imperialism. I used to joke in the late great 90's that the U.S. found the perfect form of imperialism, we import the world's cultural raw materials, repackage it with a shiny U.S. wrapper and sell it back to everybody. People don't often fight against what they demand, we weren't (for the most part) forcing ourselves on anyone, if you didn't want our products, you didn't buy them. No rebellions, colonial administration or other hassles.

We could've 'got in' even better with the world community post 9/11, we had their sympathy; U.S. related memorabilia could've flown off of the shelves. Unfortunately a calculated perfect storm of nepotism had occurred and we had another Bush in the White House. Instead of running with the potential windfall they sculpted it in that peculiar corporate shortsighted way to maximize profits without a thought for the context in which those profits are created or if said profits are even sustainable.

I want them (and the corporations they represent) imprisoned and stripped of their assets. Although even if that managed to pay the tab for their sand box time, they'd still owe us our soft power back. Maybe we could give them to the international courts (after we charge them). [By the way can we get some mandatory minimums for this seriously destructive white collar shit that is always orders of magnitude larger in effect than the efforts of any one thug or hustler?] We could put them in a zoo-like enclosure and subject them to the questioning and the will of the people (which they spend an inordinate amount of resources avoiding being public servants and all, matter of fact they're our resources that they are expending to avoid us [how fucked up is that?]). Every question they avoid or refuse to answer adds a week to their sentence. They be in the box forever even if they started with a two hour mandatory minimum.

This is why we bitch...

2007-07-25T23:22:00.001-07:00

Word.

for the lazy non link clicking:

By Nate Anderson | Published: July 25, 2007 - 01:03PM CT

Colleges were among those less than pleased to find that Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) recently talked a new amendment into the Higher Education Act legislation that was moving through the Senate. The amendment would have directed the Department of Education to compile a yearly list of the 25 top P2P-using schools. How would such a list be compiled? By the number of complaint letters received from the MPAA and RIAA.

We heard from Reid's office yesterday that the Senator had canned the proposed amendment, without comment. It's clear that it was canned in response to strong outcry from the academic world, but there was no shortage of enraged citizens either.

Colleges and universities, always fierce about their own independence and the idea of academic freedom, were not eager to implement P2P filtering software, especially since it has the potential to block legal uses of P2P technology. The schools also aren't big on unfunded mandates that tell them how to run things on campus.

One IT official at a Boston-area school noted that the proposal would have created a kind of "revolving door" for anti-P2P software companies who would have, in effect, been guaranteed 25 new customers each year. The kind of reverse meritocracy that the amendment would put in place was also completely subjective.

The Reid amendment led to protests from groups like EDUCAUSE, a coalition of colleges and universities. In an urgent letter sent to members late last week, the group pointed out that the amendment would rely on "terribly inaccurate" data from the entertainment industry, that it targets only schools and not ISPs in general, and would "dictate the day-to-day operations of colleges and universities.

Our own coverage sparked many of you into action: we heard from dozens of you that sent your views to your own senators, and a few of you called Reid's office for good measure. We were told that the volume of complaints was indeed high.

Inside Higher Ed has a nice writeup on the developments, noting that after Reid pulled his amendment, another one was inserted into the bill, which then passed the Senate. This final amendment, though, was almost innocuous: colleges simply need to publish a couple of notices to students about how illicit file-swapping is wrong.

So this is what I've been paying the F. C. C. to do...

2007-07-25T23:21:00.001-07:00

Cable Without a Cable Box, and TV Shows Without a TV

By JOHN R. QUAIN

Published: July 26, 2007

CableCARDs, which contain the information necessary to unscramble digital cable channels like HBO, could allow other equipment to become much more versatile.

New York Times article here

I suppose it is better than having my tax dollars lost

But, why don't they:

1.) study the adverse effect of the demise of the Fairness Doctrine

2.) go all anti-trust on Clear Channel and News Corp (before they merge)

3.) find the decency act unconstitutional

4.) or go all the way and actually be in charge of the movie rating system

5.) allot a specific amount of our wavelength to political campaigning, make it free and fair access, and then make all other T.V./Radio spots illegal

feel free to add your own...

Just move away, not now, RIGHT NOW!

2007-07-25T23:20:00.001-07:00

Actual release [for lawyerin' type folks]

Translation [For the rest of us]

If you are really too lazy to follow the links, Prez Bush just pwned j00.

Thanks to Bassnectar and NummyMonkey

If you have for some reason failed to read this...

2007-07-25T23:12:00.000-07:00

...book called The God Delusion, I'll let the author pitch it himself (and it's finally in paperback you [cheap/poor/I don't work at a bookstore] bastards).

Yep, I'm blog jackin'

2007-07-25T23:11:00.001-07:00

Text from blog:

A man walked up to Dick Cheney, calmly told him he thought his Iraq policy was reprehensible, and walked away. A few minutes later he was arrested by the Secret Service, in front of his 8-year-old son, for "assault".

When he asked what would happen to his child, the Secret Service said, "He can be sent to Child Services." Luckily, the boy found his mother and was safe.

But the citizen who practiced his free speech spent a few hours in jail before he was released.

original URL:

Exporting idiocy since ...

2007-07-25T23:10:00.001-07:00

New Leaders Say Pensive French Think Too Much
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: July 22, 2007
In the country of the Enlightenment, President Nicolas Sarkozy's government advocates hard work, not musing.

Story here

Why are all of these pro-business, anti-tax people against higher brain function? Oh yeah, so you are easier to enslave.

Yeah I know, I am behind. Friday, July 20, 2007

2007-07-25T23:07:00.000-07:00

In Mississippi, Ruling Is Seen as Racial Split By ADAM NOSSITER Published: July 18, 2007 A court ruling that forces voters to register by party could return Mississippi to the days of racially polarized politics.

Article here

Conclusion: The actual problem is the gerrymandering of the voting districts, but as usual the folks in charge would rather have you focused on the easy to digest indignity of racism.

He should have actually made them filibuster. July 18, 2007

2007-07-25T23:06:00.000-07:00

Vote fails 52 yea - 47 nay

Reid voted no so he can bring it back later.

Duh... July 18, 2007

2007-07-25T23:05:00.000-07:00

…and now Mitch McConnell continues to beat the dead horse called 'it's a stunt'. Praising Lieberman for exercising his right while calling the very process of exercising that right theatrics. Since our Main Stream Media is so complicit, he even gets to accurately repeat how they're negatively characterizing the proceedings. I love how they demand all this specific information that they don't have themselves for their alternative 'strategy' of doing the same thing.

Yep... July 18, 2007

2007-07-25T23:04:00.002-07:00

... McCain did it. Nothing will change? If we make the correct choice, things will change. How is it that many of the Republican talking points do one of three things, deliberately distort reality, demean the all-nighter as a 'stunt', or seek to equate status quo with change.

We can't afford to imbibe any more of their distorted reality and we can't afford any more status quo.

Now McCain again repeats the will of the people is fickle and should be ignored because we know better point. Why should Congress do the will of the people, perhaps because that is what they are elected to do, they even call one of it's portions the House of REPRESENTATIVES.

I wish he would, "shoulder a rifle and fight", the war he is obviously so interested in.

Sorry for the break. July 18, 2007

2007-07-25T23:04:00.001-07:00

Had to eat, but anyway in the two plus hours, you haven't really missed anything more, it has broken down into the same rhetoric circling around punctuated with home state examples.

I'll keep trying to post highlights of the things that make me scream at the T.V.

Is it me... July 18, 2007

2007-07-25T23:03:00.001-07:00

...or did United States Senator Orrin Hatch's description of Iran's government make you think of things that our government in it's current configuration would eventually get to doing?

By the way he didn't take long to get to Iran did he?

He speaks of squandering the goodwill of our allies in other countries if we redeploy. Is he fucking serious? What goodwill? What allies?

Then he compares it to the Cold war (which was once again against a single state), but then states it's different than Vietnam because the VC didn't have the ability to attack us here. Do you know any Iraqi insurgent organizations with the ability to attack the U.S.?

He also does everything he can to make any sensible change in strategy seem cowardly. If I pursue a strategy whereas I don't (or anyone who is representing me doesn't) have to die, then that isn't cowardly, it's intelligent.

He says we have finally mastered counter insurgency tactics and that we now dominate the field of battle. Check the stats, tell me what you think the numbers say to you. To me they say he is stupid, at best; a liar who doesn't value the lives of his fellow citizens more than an obviously failed strategy devised by members of his political party, at worst.

His assertion that we (people who are done with the waste) want to abandon without a strategy is hypocritical because they (people invested in a failed effort) invaded without a strategy is really baffling. It's like he didn't even read what he was opposing. His statement also attempts to create a false equality between the two things. Invading without a plan costs us resources. Redeploying (which is in itself... wait for it... a... PLAN!) costs us less resources.

I love his quoted analogy, which I will paraphrase:

If some someone tells you the boat you're on is on fire and you jump off, and once you do you find out that it wasn't on fire you only have two choices, swim or drown.

This from the self-avowed anti-hypocrite. How ridiculous is that? This from the, 'You down with W.M.D.? Yeah you know me.' crowd. Un-fucking-believable.

At least he is honest in saying he wants to stay there longer than the remainder of his lifetime, let's hope he doesn't get his way.

Norm Coleman = wrong. July 18, 2007

2007-07-25T23:02:00.000-07:00

United States Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota shows us how to conflate Iran with all the problems of in the entire Middle East and along the way manages to compare us to the U.S.S.R. "Al-Qaida kicked them out of Afghanistan and they kicked us out of Iraq". He seems infatuated with the phrase, "why now?" He states that the Congress shouldn't hold their finger to the wind. He says will be there a long time, and then compares it to Germany, Korea and Kosovo.

Let's go backwards this time. Hmm... we WON in Germany (which had invaded most of the rest of Europe), in Korea we were pursuing our effective strategy of containment against a single communist STATE (you know old fashioned non-asymmetrical warfare via mostly economics, gotta love that 'soft' power), in Kosovo we stopped an ongoing GENOCIDE (after repeated warnings and while being restricted by these same Republicans).

Shouldn't hold their finger to the wind?! You mean it is wrong to listen to the will of the people who elected you?! And, I don't know, fucking REPRESENT them?

Why now? Because people are dying RIGHT NOW and their deaths are not accomplishing anything positive. Our loss would be a recruiting tool? As usual you have is backwards, us BEING THERE is the terroist recruiter's wet dream.

Once again, Al-Qaida in Iraq IS NOT Al-Qaida that attacked us on Sept. 11th, 2001. We helped the rebels kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Iran is not the boogey-man behind all Middle Eastern conflict, there has been conflict in the Middle East since there've been people there with different ideas and because it is in the middle of three continents with their own cultures, it's a crossroads for everything. Can you stop trying to start another war when we don't have the resources to continue to pursue the folly in which we are currently embroiled.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007, Thune is an idiot.

2007-07-25T22:52:00.000-07:00

United States Senator John Thune from South Dakota says today's debate is about the appropriations bill and that includes a more than 3% raise for military personnel and that we think Iraq is a 'bad" war and Afghanistan is a 'good' war due to the difference in casualties. He goes on to say that we suffer more casualties in Iraq because that is where are troops are. Sen. Thune continues by asserting that there is some 'false' distinction between the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, he believes it is the same war against the same enemy. He then essentially states the United States Congress shouldn't interfere in a war effort.

My rebuttal:

1.) Dead people don't need or spend money.

2.) Iraq is a 'bad' war because they DID NOT attack us.

3.) Afghanistan is a 'good' war because that is where Al-Qaida is

4.) Any casualty incurred while pursuing a false target is more than a waste.

5.) Osama bin Laden is not, nor shall he ever be, Saddam Hussein.

6.) I'll quote the United States Constitution here:

"...The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;...

...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."

10:20 PM update. July 17, 2007

2007-07-25T22:51:00.001-07:00

United States Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma thinks there might be repercussions if we leave, and we have an moral obligation to wait for the experts' opinion to be proved or disproved. So, let me get this straight, there are people currently dying in Iraq, and we are there, but... we can't leave because... people might die. If English isn't your first language the preceding sentence proposes a notion that is utter nonsense.

On experts... Are these the same experts that painted us a vision of flowers strewn at the feet of our soldiers? The experts that said we need fewer troops than we actually did? The experts that said the insurgency was in it's last throes? How about the expert that declared mission accomplished while playing dress up? Fuck those experts. Do you think any discernible difference in our situation will occur in two months?

How about we apply logic and chase the people that attacked us, you know the ones that have rebuilt their full capability and are about 1,217.4 MILES (1,959.2 kilometers) WEST of where we currently are.

All night Senate session! Better than porn. July 17, 2007

2007-07-25T22:50:00.001-07:00

Don't worry I'll watch it so you don't have to (although you should). Am I fucking insane? I think death and/or serious injury is binary. Either you're fucked up or you're not fucked up. But, United States Senator Susan M. Collins from Maine believes there is a middle ground. The only ground in Iraq is the ground meat being produced from the bodies of our soldiers, marines, et al. Lets get the fuck out people.

The breakdown (out of five stars)[no Dodd, sue me].

2007-07-25T22:48:00.000-07:00

Well the republican (or rethuglican or repugnican) candidates are all out of their minds, so they're a wash.

Clinton - the current front runner; everyone is still in love with her husband, or their lifestyle at that time in history. This makes her stupidly popular even though she transparently tries to play both ends against the middle. I personally think she has a nefarious hidden agenda due to the secretive way in which she conducts her business. I do think she was 'broken' upon her arrival in D.C. when she pushed for universal health care and the real powers that be (corporate health and corporate medicine) set loose all the dogs of hell upon her. Two and a half stars.

Obama - initially the dream candidate, but as time goes on he (or him via his campaign handlers) has started to put image before substance. He never SAYS anything anymore, all of his statements either preach to the choir on safe, previously tread upon ground issue wise or he is the classic politician with his nebulous non-answers and non-statements. The disturbing trend is if he's willing to sell out to get elected just on the campaign trail, what is he willing to bargain away once he's under real pressure either in D.C. or at the international bargaining table? Still, better than the alternatives. Three and a quarter stars.

Edwards - the "outsider" candidate; he knows he's the third wheel and this allows him to make very specific promises and lay out very specific strategies for the prevailing issues. But, how much of this is 'outsider' grand standing? If the race was closer would he still be the idealist and planner? Pretty vanilla, sort of a wild card with potential that could either swing positive or negative. Two stars.

Kucinich - fast rising star from Ohio; his agenda kicks ass and take names, if his initiatives actually got through congress, we'd all be better off. But his politics also have a past, he went from being (or at least voting) pro-life to either abstaining or voting pro-choice in (well duh why isn't that already the case) situations. I'd rather have the pro-choice votes being pro-choice myself, but if his shift in stance is calculated, then he poses a threat as President due to the erosion of Roe v. Wade in the past few years. Two and a half stars.

Gore - top non-candidate; has all the experience, has the name recognition, is ridiculously smart, there is simply not much to NOT to like about him. His problems are: 1.) he got cheated out of an election already and in America the stigma of losing sticks with you for quite awhile, 2.) he would get caught in the train wreck that the first series of primaries that have a serious minority and a serious woman contender is bound to be. People are going to vote their affiliation, not their principals "just to see a [fill in the blank]" president. In my opinion he'd be smart to continue sitting it out until next time around when it isn't such a novelty. Right now, three and a half stars; in four years assuming status quo, four stars.

The Assault on Reason

2007-07-25T22:46:00.000-07:00

by Al Gore

Al Gore logically and ruthlessly eviscerates the very notion of the unitary executive. Then proceeds to illuminate the soil from which it grew and it's enduring consequences.

Speaking of consequences, I'm going to quote Winston Churchill, as Gore does in this book, "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences."

The accumulation of executive power has not occurred in a vacuum. Its increase in power was your decrease in rights, representation, and relevance. The time to 'draw your line in the sand' is now. Use the remaining rights (that people of that ilk see as privileges) you have to get back the rights you've had taken away from you.

Unless, of course, you'd like your children to spend what's left of their company scrip at the company store after their housing expenses have been fairly deducted to finance their company housing.

Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and her Path to Power

2007-07-25T22:44:00.000-07:00

by Marcus Mabry

Have you seen the Star Wars prequels? You know the ones that illuminate the factors and decisions that transformed a little slave boy named Anakin into the evil Darth Vader, right hand man of a more evil emperor.

How about Animal Farm, have you read it? How a group living in degradation rises above it, overthrows their oppressors and ultimately goes on to become oppressors.

Odds are even if you haven't directly experienced these two works of fiction, they are pervasive enough in our popular culture for you to have heard of them and know the gist of their plot arcs.

Here you have a book that relates the story of someone's rise from institutionalized adversity to the heights of power in the land of her birth. Along the way you discover some of the roots of her psyche and how they grew around her life decisions to form the labyrinthine, tautologous, insular mind she has today. The same mind that allows her to execute the duties of her office with such egregious contempt for it's actual purpose. True insidious evil is like erosion, it follows the path of least resistance until it has carved a mighty duct that allows its agents to flow freely.

Unfortunately, this is not a work of fiction.

Nickel and Dimed

2007-07-25T22:43:00.000-07:00

by Barbara Ehrenreich

This book re-ignited my loathing for corporate America and its usury towards its own workforce. It was the beginning of the end of my time at a certain corporate bookstore.

Barbara could have remained in her redoubt of success and wrote a fact based report filled with the charts and statistics that are the chilling indicators of the demise of the middle class, and of inescapable truth that working for a living no longer provides enough income to invest in your future (or anything else). Instead she went out and collected some compelling data points on her own.

They told you that she was a melodramatic grandstander like Michael Moore. Of course they also believe that hard work will get you anything you want and that racism is a thing of the past.

They are not particularly well informed.

Jennifer Government

2007-07-25T22:41:00.000-07:00

by Max Barry

You want to know what life as a serf or apprentice was like during the clash for dominance between the established hereditary powers and emerging capital powers. Your problem has always been adopting the alien mindset necessary to truly empathize with any protagonist from that era.

Your cries have been heard. Max Barry has set that seemingly futile struggle for advancement and security, which is the existence of the working class, in a setting familiar to you. Against a backdrop of impossibly wealthy multinational corporate conglomerates and national governments that have largely out grown their founder's ideals, our characters are relentlessly ground into lubricant for the gears of the 'great society'. *******************************************

"We recommit the errors of our forebearers so you don't have to wonder what your grandparents and great-grandparents were angry enough to fight about".

-- [may be attributed to any of the historical or current "powers that be"]

A Game of Thrones

2007-07-25T22:37:00.000-07:00

by George R. R. Martin

Your friends keep suggesting that you read this or that fantasy book. You remain skeptical because you:

Remember that insipid Disney crap (eg. Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, etc…)
Think that the fantasy genre is mindless fluff about friendly unicorns, talking animals and anthropomorphic atmospheric conditions.
Have read Tolkien and everything else is obviously a debased derivative of that magnum opus.

This is not that book. Hold on, you heard me but you weren't listening…

THIS IS NOT THAT BOOK.

This is the fantastic ~~Middle~~ Dark Ages where non-noble human life was largely valueless, noble life is usually a high risk proposition due to your own or someone else's ambitions, and the caricature white hats and black hats have been driven into extinction by the necessities of survival. You'll find the ruthlessness of Stalin, the machinations of Machiavelli, the actuation of Churchill, in short, the superlatives of humanity. If this book were any grittier you'd have to spit the sand out of your mouth.

Forty Signs of Rain

2007-07-25T22:33:00.000-07:00

by Kim Stanley Robinson

The only fictional thing about this book is that the major events within might not happen for five years.The worlds of scientific fact and political expediency continue their current day collision throughout this book and you get a close-up of the crash site through the eyes of the people who live at the wreck, government sponsored scientists.Of course all scientists are pale, beaker toting, bespectacled minimalists with a one track fashion sense that runs toward lab wear.

Orrrrrr…

You could suspend your acceptance of the misinformed
general consensus and enjoy the naturally complex web
of (gasp...) human interaction amongst the characters
in this book.

...eliminates even the toughest stain...

2007-07-25T22:29:00.001-07:00

I honestly don't know what our... [me]searches for the proper honorific[/me] ...FUCKING IDIOT IN CHARGE has to do to get fired. How in the fuck can you commute the prison sentence of someone who essentially worked for you? If you pardoned him then you'd be saying, "I don't think a crime has been committed". By commuting the sentence you say, "I know there is a crime but I think I am better equipped to adjudicate the law".

This is the same retard who was either too engrossed in the riveting plot of 'My Pet Goat', or so terrified that his limited brain function failed for seven minutes while the country he was responsible for was being attacked. Better equipped than a jury of his peers and an experienced judge (you know the Judicial branch), are you fucking serious?

Even a lack wit in George W. Bush's class of mental ineptitude understands that this unequivocally means that there is the law for 'you people' and the law for the elite ruling class. Lets say your jury was still out on that one despite the fact that there is a discontinuity between theory and practice of law (e.g. If man A sneaks in a corner store and steals $350 and gets caught, and man B defrauds the retirement trust of a corporation for $350,000,000 [leaving thousands of people without any sort of retirement fund]. Who goes to prison longer [likely WITH a mandatory minimum sentencing]? The answer should be Man B, but as most of us know it is Man A). This is the light shining under the rock where you have obviously been hiding, your personal wake up call.

What are you going to do?
Well you could show your support with your personal capital:

Yes that is absolutely real, no I'm not lying to you (notice the real silver from ground zero). I know they're ghouls, but they're American ghouls and that means... something right?

Or, you might actually want to do something useful but have been made impotent with rage (I feel you, why do you think it's taken me this long to post?). Stop. Take some breaths, puffs, drinks or whatever your personal centering technique happens to be. Now make a plan, make if good, then tell someone about it, after they shoot it down and poke it full of holes (what are friends for?) rebuild your plan. Keep submitting it to your personal community of devil's advocates until you think it's good enough.

Now execute your plan.

thought excerpt

2007-07-25T22:28:00.001-07:00

God is at best a delusion, "...Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact...".

Faith of the religious type tends to run counter to, and in many cases seeks to undermine, reason.

Religion itself evolved as a system of managing finite resources. When humans became agrarian they needed different rules for some simple reasons:

1.) People could no longer just deplete the area and move on like hunter-gatherers.

2.) The increase of population of agrarian living meant that the concrete interconnectivity of the social unit had to be replaced with an abstract interconnectivity (it is easier to understand "don't steal from your fellow [insert affiliation here], than it is to understand don't steal from Bob the baker, Carl the cobbler, Joe the cowherd, Mark the smith, etc...). In a necessarily small group of hunter-gatherers you wouldn't steal because you knew everybody and unless you had an aberrant psyche understood that that would weaken the group. Growing populations meant that you didn't necessarily know everybody and that visceral knowledge of the damage you would cause was diluted by you lack of direct connection to your would be victim.

3.) The wise person/elder/keeper of lore of the group could no longer directly interact with everyone. This means you needed more of those types of people, but at the same time you need to give consistent information so the wise ones necessarily codified their wisdom so that they wouldn't contradict each other and to leave a legacy of knowledge.

Religions are a combination of government and science. Government in that it sets rules and provides logistics for the distribution of goods. Science in that it attempts to explain the 'whys'.

By and large people have realized that religion as government is outmoded and unwieldy. (e.g. Protestant Reformation, birth of the Anglican church, the fact the primary architects of the most modern form of government [ours - I know crazy, right] were Deists (the 18th century's version of Atheists and to some extent Agnostics, the fact that it took until the 20th century for the Vatican to apologize for torturing and murdering scientists [who were correct!] during the Renaissance).

However, people have an amazing (to me) problem realizing that religion as science is even more outmoded and unwieldy. What religion invented ANYTHING in the last 200 years (you know the horse transportation to rocket/jet turbine/mag-lev era) that possibly competes with the importance of the microchip, antibiotics, sterilized surgery, fiber-optics, etc...

Religion isn't the best government you can have, it isn't the best science you can have. Why do people still use it? Oh yeah, it makes them feel better. So do drugs, and they are currently illegal, or controlled due to their destructive side effects. What destructive side effects could religion possibly have? Surely not the:

1.) Inquisition

2.) Crusades

3.) Holocaust

4.) Ongoing wars or militarily sustained truces in: Northern Ireland
Côte d'Ivoire
Bosnia
Sudan
Cyprus
East Timor
Iraq
Gaza/Israel/Palestine
Kashmir
Kosovo
Sri Lanka
Tibet
etc...

5.) Murder of OB/GYNs

6.) Male and female circumcision (and other mutilation)

But what about gunpowder and nuclear weapons, science made those, right? Yes, but science never said to use them. Religions motivate people to kill people, usually with very explicit rules for doing so in their respective canons. Can you find an Einstein (or anyone who worked on the Manhattan project) quote that say we should bomb population X? Didn't think so.

Is science or are scientists perfect? No. They're humans pursuing human activity, the difference is that their whims and opinions aren't blindly followed by masses of people who haven't stopped shopping long enough to wonder why they do or believe what they do or believe.

I'm not referring to you... specifically

2007-07-25T22:23:00.000-07:00