Who wants to ralph in a voting booth?

"Actually going into the voting booth and ralphing is no great pleasure, compared to the remorse you'll feel if Mr. Bush is elected and fresh horrors begin to unfold and the nadir is reached and the Bushies keep going down, down, down."

I really do love Garrison Keillor.

Jesus: The Original Bleeding Heart Liberal

Just in case you were wondering, or rather, just in case you were a moron who actually contemplated who Jesus would vote for. Yes, Jesus. You know, the 2000+ year old son of god? Personally, I'd like to think he would be above the fray of American politics, but you know. Appartenly, there is a panel to debate such, um, crap.

[Via my wife, Kristyna!]

The Broken Promises of George W. Bush

We all know there's plenty of them, but here's a rundown from the American Progress Action Fund.

Illinois Republicans Nominate Three Time Loser

Well, it's official. After Jack Ryan went down (no pun intended) the Illinois Republican Party was in a tailspin, desperately grabbing at loser candidates until one finally stuck.

I'm really not sure what the Republican Party here was thinking. They had a primary; Jack Ryan won. When he dropped out of the race, the candidate should have been Jim Oberweis, who came in second. The party tried to get Steve Rauschenberger (who was a close third to Oberweis) but when he declined, they got really desperate, and even tried to get Mike Ditka!

They did find a real gem of a candidate in Alan Keyes though. Not only has he lost a bid at the presidency, he's lost the bid for the senate seat in his actual home state of Maryland twice. However, my favorite thing about Alan Keyes would be his views on non-residents of a state running for senate election:

"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate her."

Q.E.D.

The Politics of Terror

I guess I'm a cynic, because I had the feeling this was true all along, however, Julius has posted a chart that shows:

1. Whenever Bush's approval ratings fall in the polls, there is a new terror alert.

2. A new terror alert results in a slight uptick in his approval.

3. Terror alerts frequently follow a rash of unfavorable headlines.

4. As the election approached, the number and frequency of terror alerts is increasing dramatically.

Now, as noted on the page with the chart, certainly not all terror alerts are motivated by politics. However, you have to give pause when you consider that the latest round of alerts: immediately followed the Democratic National Convention; were based, apparently, on old data, possibly as old as three years; and, even resulted in Tom Ridge giving a follow-up press conference to specifically deny the alerts were politically motivated.

Again, I would like to believe better, but my gut tells me these are the administration's attempts to fear monger and try to dupe the American public into thinking they are somehow doing a good job of keeping America safe, while at the same time always making voters too afraid to change administrations.

"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror ..." -FDR, 1933

I'm Not Picking on Ernie. I swear.

Okay, it might seem like all I do is react to articles that Ernie the Attorney posts, but I swear, I'm not picking on him!

Today, he offers this tidbit and calls the press attitude towards Kerry's speech "inane". Well, he's wrong. And as sometimes Democrat registered as a Republican who mostly votes Libertarian, I'll tell you why.

Kerry's speech was monumentally significant. Not because it was a great speech; Barak Obama stole the show on that count. Kerry is simply not a very dynamic public speaker. And not because it was brilliantly written. It did have some political double-speak and typical non-specific, non-committal policy points. What political speech these days doesn't? (Save Al Sharpton and Barak Obama.) However, it was significantly better than any speech he's given to date. And that is important. It's also important that the speech did contain enough meat to make me feel okay about voting for him. In fact, that was critical; that is why it was monumentally significant.

The Democratic Party faces a real challenge with Kerry. To be honest, I didn't support him in the primary and when it became clear that he was the nominee, I had the attitude far too many voters seem to have today: "Well, at least he's not Bush!" Frankly, that's a horrible way to feel about the person you are considering casting your vote for as the President of the United States. As voters, we want dynamic leaders, with vision, who stand for clear ideals and who we hope will be able to implement at least some of those ideals. And here we are, the nation's "liberals", ready to vote for "Not the Incumbent". That sucks.

With his speech, Kerry may not have hit a home run, but it was a solid base hit. Kerry never inspired me, but before that speech, I honestly didn't like him. And now, I do like him. Do I think he's a great speaker? No. Do I think he would make a good president? Yes. Do I think he's going to be Lincoln meets FDR and lead America to dominate the solar system? Well, no. But give me a break. Very, and I mean very, few politicians inspire like that today. I can't think of a candidate since I've been alive who inspires like that.

I'm pretty representative of the average American voter. I'm a middle class Mid-Westerner, raised Christian (don't practice much) fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Before, I was just voting against George Bush. Now, I'm voting for Kerry. If the power of one speech at one event can do that in today's cynical world, I think that's pretty monumental.

This Land

I'm sure you've probably already seen it, but if not, you need to visit JibJab and watch the This Land parody. It's quite funny.

What isn't funny is the reaction of Ludlow Music, the copyright owner of Woody Guthrie's song. They want the parody taken down. How ironic, since Boing Boing points out that one of Guthrie's frequently used copyright statements was:

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

It just goes to show how perverted copyright has become in our country. What started as a means to protect the artist who created, it's now the means to protect the company that takes control of the creation when the artist dies (Disney, anyone?). And just in case you thought the original This Land was just a cheesy feel-good song, it might be a good idea to re-read the last two stanzas, which are often left out when people sing the tune:

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

In the squares of the city - In the shadwow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

The Kerry Campaign Online

Dennis Kennedy has an interesting post today about Dave Winer and thoughts on the Kerry campaign, the DNC, and their use of Internet technology in this election.

As usual, Dave has his panties in a bunch over the DNC reliance on television ads. He's under the impression they are "clueless":

"Joe Trippi, get a clue. Geez Louise. He thinks the role of the Internet in politics is to raise money so they can run ads on TV. Look at how much good all those TV ads did for Howard Dean. You think he would have figured it out by now. The election will happen here, not there. Probably not the Presidential election of 2004. Perhaps one of our goals for the DNC is to smoke out innovative uses of the Internet by Democrats, where they're doing more than raise money for TV ads. Put that one on the list for sure."

As they say on one of my favorite radio programs, let's do the numbers:

• There are 248 *million* television sets in U.S. Households
  
• 98.2% of all households with at least one television
  
• The average number of TVs per home in 2001: 2.4
  
  
  
• 54 million households have computers
  
• 51% of households have one or more computers
  
• 41.5% of households with computers have Internet access
  

Hmmm... yes, what on earth is Joe Trippi smoking?! The DNC definitely needs to pander more to the self-important blog community. The revolution will not be televised, it will be blogged.

Now, let me preface this by saying I'm not a political analyst. But common sense sure tells me that advertising where the greatest number of people will see my message sure makes sense. The Internet is proving to be a very valuable fund raising tool, in spite of the fact that Winer thinks that's a poor use of the net. However, in June the Kerry campaign raised $34M with about $3M of that being on-line. Impressive use of the net, if you ask me, but it also demonstrates again that the majority of the money and most likely the votes are not coming from on-line.

Is the Kerry campaign making the best use of the net that they can? Probably not. Will the net be more influential in future elections? To put it in terms even Winer can understand, "Duh". Of course as the net grows in popularity, and as the general populous becomes more comfortable there will be a rise in the influence of the Internet on campaigns. But honestly, stop putting the cart before the horse. The democrats aren't doing a horrible job on-line; they are raising good money via the web, and they are keeping people informed of campaign info on-line. That's pretty good for the present state of politics and the present state of the web. They're even trying some interesting things, such as the custom "Kerry Campaign" newsreader Dennis mentions. (Although, I think that is mis-guided. Why in the hell would I want a Kerry only RSS reader? Answer: I wouldn't.) But they are trying.

What it really boils down to is that Winer disagrees with anyone who he doesn't feel is using the net and blogs the way he sees fit. Disagree with him, and you need to "get a clue". What's that? You're raising millions of dollars on the net not doing it his way? Apparently, that still makes you a chump in his book. Whatever. Hey Dave, put your money where your mouth is, run a successful, all Internet political campaign. I dare you.

Fahrenheit 9/11

I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend with some friends, and I thought I should post to encourage anyone who might be reading to go see it.

First, let me qualify this "review" or "endorsement"... I am a liberal, although I'm not a Democrat. I have distinct Libertarian leaning, although I do believe in some level of compassion toward humans expressed through social programs. In addition to being upset about the international good will America has lost through the current administration, I am also particularly upset with the loss of our civil liberties, through abominations like the USA Patriot Act.

Now, I also have mixed feelings about Michael Moore. I think he is a generally funny fellow, who does have a definite political agenda. And like most pundits (and he is a pundit) he often twists the facts a bit in order to make a point. And he can sometimes come off a bit self-righteous. That said, you need to see this movie.

Moore limits his screen time in Fahrenheit 9/11 more than in his previous films, and while there are some typical Moore moments (like when he tried to get members of Congress to enlist their kids in the military) he really does address some very troubling issues with regard to the Bush administration, which I think the mainstream press would be doing the American public a service by covering a little bit more. For example:

Why did the Bush administration allow members of the Bin Laden family to fly out of the U.S. on 9/13 before the FBI even had a chance to question them at all?

Why does the Saudi embassy get Secret Service support??!

Why, when 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi's, do we not pressure Saudi Arabia for more cooperation in the "War on Terror".

Why was Hamid Karzai, a former consultant to Unocal, installed in Afganistan as the leader, to aid the "war on terror" and what is his role in the Unocal pipeline?

And why don't we place a little more scrutiny on the Carlyle Group, which is a major defense contractor, heavily invested in by the Bush family, and until recently, heavily invested in by the Saudi's?

If it were just one thing, it might be easier to dismiss. And I'm not even advocating that we necessarily accept Moore's postulations... just that these are questions worth looking into, and we're not. There are just too many questions raised to dismiss them, and adopt a Britney Spears, "we have to stand by our president and trust him to do the right thing" attitude. It's clear that even if you hate Moore, we can't trust our president.

Watch As Your Rights Are Slowly Eroded

The Supreme Court today upheld the conviction of Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel was arrested in Nevada when he refused to identify himself to a police officer. He was not arrested or charged with any crime, he simply refused to give an officer his name when asked.

I reviewed the video on Hiibel's website, and I think he was being a little beligerant, and the officers were there because someone had reported a possible domestic dispute. However, when the police showed up, it was quite clear there was no crime in progress. They could have easily asked his daughter if there was a problem and determined that there was no crime committed without knowing his name. The shame here is that now, essentially, any police officer has the right to ask you to identify yourself for nearly any reason.

Dissenting were Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg... better known as the soul of the court.

Update:

Someone asked me today, "What's the big deal about having to give your name to the cops?" Which, in light of this decision, is a good question. The problem, I believe, is that this decision is a "slippery-slope" which may end in the further erosion of our rights.

For example, the state in this case argued that providing your name is not unreasonable, and that it doesn't violate your 4th or 5th Amendment rights. (The right to not be unreasonably seached, and your right against incriminating yourself.) The court agreed, stating that it was unlikely that providing your name would be incriminating, but that it would provide the officer with potentially useful information to assess the current situation, for example, did you have a criminal past or a history of domestic violence, etc.

The problem can easily be summed up with this hypothetical: what if the citizen provides a false name? The value of the name provided is then completely negated. The officer can't determine anything of value, based on a false name. Additionally, the officer has no way of knowning that a false name has been provided unless the officer is also free to request some type of identification. If the officer can't confirm your identity, the name is useless. But now, there is a justifiable reason for legislatures to pass statutes requiring citizens to produce documentation of identity to law enforcement officers. Chilling, indeed.

Update:

Will Baude has an excellent essay entitled "Bad ID" which reiterates the slippery slope here, and gives some case law backup.

Fixing Education In America

Ernie the Attorney quoted Philip Greenspun in his blog today, talking about how to "fix" the educational system in America. Now, I enjoy reading Ernie's blog, and he usually has some good insight, but how anyone could find this statement "brilliant" is beyond me. Greenspun said (of government schools):

"Everyone who works there is either a bureaucrat or a union member. None of these people incurs any kind of pay loss or risk of firing if the kids remain totally ignorant."

That statement is, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit. I have no doubt that there are teachers in public schools who are coasting. Of course, that never happens in private schools, or at universities with the tenure system, does it? Oh, right, bullshit.

I went to a public school and I could count on one hand the "bureaucrats" who didn't care if kids were "totally ignorant". The fact is that I had many talented and dedicated teachers who worked their asses off to make sure we got the best education possible.

In the face of already unmanageable class sizes and dwindling budgets, many of these people sacrificed money from their own pockets or came up with creative ways to stretch pitiful funding even further. I suppose Greenspun thinks those people just became teachers so they could take summers off?

The problem with public education lies in not just a lack of resources, but misguided attempts to qualify education with standardized testing that causes schools to miss the forest for the trees. Teaching to tests sounds good in election sound-bites, and does painfully little to actually educate the populous. The problem is systemic, because we as a society value lower property taxes over increased funding for our schools and because our society seems to somehow equate poverty with stupidity. In fact, the stupidity really emanates from ignorant attitudes like Greenspun's.

His rhetoric is typical elitist bullshit. Technology is hardly a panacea for a broken system with broken values, and the broken values are typified in comments like that.

What exactly is "ineffective"?

"En route to Iraq for a surprise visit Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him that administration lawyers oppose releasing the photos on grounds that would violate a Geneva Convention stricture against presenting images of prisoners that could be construed as degrading."

Okay, so, let me understand this... the "Rumsfeld" Pentagon apparently either 1) doesn't have enough authority to stop troops from torturing prisoners or 2) orders troops to torture prisoners. And now, after violating all kinds of human rights and the Geneva Convention, Rumsfeld is suddenly concerned about not violating it by releasing photos of our atrocities? Wow, am I the only American that sees through this bullshit? I doubt it.

And Rumsfeld has the gall to say he'd only resign if he were "no longer able to be effective"?

So... the Red Cross warned the Pentagon and Bush administration about "abuses" (read: torture) in January. But the President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense didn't learn about these "abuses" until 60 Minutes II released the photos? 60 Minutes II!! Question: How much more ineffective as Secretary of Defense can you be?!

I think it's about time the American public handed Bush Rumsfeld and Myers asses on a platter. Maybe Wolfowitz can snap some photos.

P.S. I think it's somehow fitting that my spell checker wants to replace "Wolfowitz" with "Halfwit". :)

Finally, Good Election News from California!

Finally, we get a bit of good news related to elections coming out of California. It seems the Secretary of State has de-certified all electronic voting machines, and is asking for Diebold to be criminally prosecuted! Thank god, maybe this will wake some people up to just how insecure these systems are, and how Diebold has been lying about them all along.

So just exactly why can't these machines print paper verifiable ballots? There is no valid reason.

Bring it on: America's War President

This photo montage is made from the faces of American military personnel who have died in Iraq.

Courtesy of the American Leftist

Don't Run Ralph

Here's an interesting Flash that points out how Nader cost Gore the election, and asks him not to run. Ralph does stand for a lot of good things, but as his last campaign showed:

1. He can't even come close to winning.

2. He can draw enough liberal Democrat votes to swing a close election.

You might not agree entirely with whoever gets the democratic nomination, however, ask yourself this: do you agree with them more than you agree with Bush? Because a vote cast in protest in this election is a vote cast for Bush.

Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legalized

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

[Via BEB]

Federal Budget - As Oreo Cookies

Stunning political advocacy Flash. This is one of the most effective pieces of political advocacy I've ever seen. Ben Cohen, the Ben of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, narrates a short Flash movie for TrueMajority.org, in which he explains -- using Oreo cookies -- the way that the federal budget is currently apportioned, and how little rearrangement would be necessary to renew all of America's social programs. The examples are vivid and charming, and the logic is compelling.

Why IDs Create a False Sense of Security

Bruce Schneier has written a really excellent piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, called "How We Are Fighting the War on Terrorism: IDs and the Illusion of Security". He raises several excellent points about how merely having an ID these days is essentially meaningless, and why the ID of using IDs as a stalwart of national security is a dangerously flawed idea.

Scoble is Wrong

Protect your investment: buy open. Scoble has written a weblog entry about, among other things, iTunes DRM and Microsoft DRM, and whether you should get an iPod. Scoble works for Microsoft, as do a number of good, sharp, ethical people that I know, and I know him in passing, and he seems to be a good guy. With that disclaimer out of the way, let me say that I think that this blog entry of his epitomizes the sloppiest, worst thinking about digital-media in the field today. From [Boing Boing]

The above is snippet from a post Cory Doctorow has written in response to this post by Robert Scoble. Unlike Cory, I don't know Scoble, even in passing. However, having worked for a company that was acquired by Microsoft, I can say that Cory is right about one thing: the vast majority of Microsoft employees are both highly intelligent and ethical folks. Cory is right about another thing: their intelligence and commitment doesn't mean they are right, in fact, they are often incorrect as Scoble is in this case.

In his article, Scoble falls victim to Microsoft's own internal marketing. The gist of which is this: Microsoft's digital rights management protocol (WMA) will be adopted by more OEMs/vendors. Therefore, there will be more devices on the market (portable audio players, car stereos, rocket jet packs, etc.) that can play music which uses WMA vs. other technologies such as ACC (Apple's DRM Solution).

The problem is that Scoble is missing the big picture here, which is what Cory pointed out. The true "choice" consumers should be able to take advantage of shouldn't be linked to a company at all. Neither Apple nor Microsoft should win in this battle of DRM. What should be created is either a consortium of vendors (ala DVD standards) or better yet, and open standard that anyone could implement. In spite of what Scoble seems to believe, consumers do not win when any one company controls the methods by which they can use their media. Cory raises the example of Betamax vs. VHS. Just for a moment let's forget all of Microsoft's past business transgressions, and assume that they are the most consumer loving, benevolent company on earth. Even if that were true today, that does not mean that it will always be true. In fact, history has shown it's not likely to be true as DRM becomes a more important part of our daily lives. If you need some examples of that, think back to Unisys and .gifs or take a look at SCO and Unix. Even though more companies might someday adopt the WMA DRM solution, that does not mean that it will always offer more choice for consumers.

There really is only one way to ensure true freedom of choice for consumers. Freedom to choose where and when they play the music they have rightfully purchased. That is to remove DRM from the hands of any one single company which could (reasonably be foreseen) to use a monopoly in DRM to their competitive advantage. Make it an open standard. Allow anyone to implement it. Period. Create an industry consortium of vendors committed to furthering and developing the standard and simply give away (or charge a nominal fee) for vendor licensing. That would allow a true, open playing field for device manufacturers and software developers, without being locked into any proprietary systems, and would, in the end, be the only way I can see to offer consumers real choice. But I don't really think choice is what Microsoft wants to offer consumers anyway.

Howard Dean

First, I'm not a Dean supporter. I honestly haven't made up my mind about the Democratic primary candidates yet. In my mind, I still want to know more about Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Clark before I make any decisions. And I honestly don't give one rats ass what voters in Iowa and New Hampshire think. Apparently, the press believes that all voters are lemmings, and we're not going to research the candidates and make up our own minds, instead blindly following two states which have little in common with our own, simply because their primaries come first.

However, I do think this whole Howard Dean anger thing has been blown way out of proportion. I saw the "angry" speech in question, and I have to say, what exactly about it wasn't presidential?? That he raised his voice? That he "whooped"? The man was speaking to a rally. A rally of his own supporters. He hadn't done as well as they'd hoped in Iowa, but they certainly did better than anyone would have expected three months ago. So in speaking to a crowd of 3500 supporters, Dean got excited?! And that is supposed to demonstrate that he's not presidential? Please people... there are plenty of reasons not to support Howard Dean (like his stance on guns, for example). But blowing something as innocuous as a raucous campaign trail motivational speech this much out of proportion is just plain stupid. Of course, no one ever accused the American media of pandering to intelligence.

Creative Commons

If you are a creative individual (and most everyone bothering to read this blog is) then you need to know about the Creative Commons.The Creative Commons is the creation of Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford School of Law, Harvard Law School, and many others, that allows people to license their works in ways that actually make sense. You can create something, be it text, music, video, images, etc. and then pick out a Creative Commons license that makes sense for you; options for licensing include granting all rights, granting all non-commercial rights, or combinations thereof. It's sort of the creative equivalent of the GPL/Open Source thing software developers have been using for their projects, and I think much good can come of it. Check it out.