April 8, 2008
Clinton: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Voters
I don't think it's a secret I'm an Obama supporter. However, recently, I've crossed over to being a Hillary opponent. If Hillary is the nominee without winning the popular vote and pledged delegates, I will not support her run for president. And here's why...
I can forget her desire to stay in the race for the nomination, even though it's looking mathematically less and less like she has a chance.
I can forgive her "misstatements" which keep piling up at an alarming rate, to the point where we she's almost going to have rally chants that contain the words "pants on fire".
But her contempt for the democratic process I cannot forgive or forget. Today on All Things Considered (NPR), she was asked about suggestions from her campaign that pledged delegates should change sides--even though those delegates are chosen by the voters based on their promise to support a particular candidate. Here's what she said:
"There is some fundamental misunderstanding of the way this whole nominating process works," Clinton says. "Every delegate has the right to choose whom they will vote for. ... At the end of the day, there is no requirement that anybody do anything other than make their own best judgment."
No, Hillary. When I, and millions of other voters across America went into the voting booth to vote in this primary season, we voted for delegates who had pledged to support you, Obama, Edwards, etc. You can be damn sure we, the American voters, expect thoe delegates to keep their word, and not "make their own best judgment." Clinton grouses excessively about the voters of Michigan and Florida being disenfranchised, yet, when it suits her own political goals, she's willing to disenfranchise every voter in the Democratic Party in every state.
Each and every day, Hillary is demonstrating to me that she merely wants to win at all costs, no matter if the Democratic Party is decimated in the process. I expect a certain amount of double talk and politics in any campaign. I understand rhetoric and campaign promises. But Hillary is becoming a routine liar, showing nothing but contempt for the process, the party, and the American people.
I think Hillary Clinton has a fundamental misunderstanding of the way this whole nominating process should work, and the way the American voters expect it to work. We expect that the candidate who wins the popular vote and the most pledged delegates (even should that turn out to be her) should be the party's nominee for President of the United States.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 18, 2008
Presidential Experience
I like McCain—I do give him credit for being an independent thinker (for the most part) and I don’t think all of his campaign platforms are unreasonable.
But in my mind, the choice for president is quite clear. On one hand, we have an eloquent speaker who is intelligent and experienced enough to understand and articulate the subtleties of racial relations in America—and who isn’t afraid to talk about the issue. While on the other hand, we have a career politician who—while on a trip designed to showcase his foreign policy experience—fails to grasp even the most rudimentary facts in a region that will dominate foreign policy issues for at least the next several presidential terms.
One is a politician—and maybe a decent one—but the other one is clearly a leader.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 5, 2008
Vote!
I already have...
Have you?! If not, get out and do it!!
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 1, 2007
Fish gotta swim and hearts gotta bleed...
Molly Ivins passed away after battling cancer. Like many people, my first exposure to Ivins was with Bushwhacked which is a great book. I'd highly recommend checking out it and some of her others, as well. She had a great heart and great humor.Posted by Dave! Permalink
December 13, 2006
The Dave Paradox
Last night I was listening to my iPod, which decided to play Anti-Flag, N.B.C. (No Blood-thirsty Corporations). As I was sitting waiting for my Corporations final to begin. Ironically, I love both that song and the class.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
December 5, 2006
Suing Edgar Bronfman
It's probably because I'm studying for Business Organizations and have derivative suits on the brain, but when I saw this little tidbit where Edgar Bronfman, CEO of the Warner Music Group, admits that his kids have broken the law and downloaded music. Of course, unlike those parents suffering lawsuits at the hands of the RIAA, Bronfman preferred to "keep [their punishment] within the family".
Now, I don't know what kind of (legal) entity the RIAA is (and don't have time to look it up), but it sure would be killer if some of the "artists" or labels they are supposedly representing were to hold their feet to the fire and make them file suit against Bronfman. Why shouldn't he and his children suffer the same fate of bogus lawsuits that other parents face?
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 9, 2006
Thank Goodness! *
Well, it looks like a done deal: the dems take the senate, too!. Between this and Rummy, it's like Christmas came early.
Just don't fsck it up!! (Which means, someone please tell John Kerry he need not run again.)
*I would say thank god, but you know. Besides, the results of the election clearly demonstrate that there is no god, or if there is, he doesn't like the republican party as much as they think he does. Maybe he just doesn't like politics?
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
November 8, 2006
Bye Bye Rummy?!
Rumsfeld is stepping down! It really is just like Christmas!!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
November 3, 2006
Atheism at the Ludicrous Extreme
Clearly, I'm not an atheist. But it's important to note I am not a christian, either. Some would call me an agnostic, but I prefer merely to describe myself as spiritual. Raised (for the most part) Unitarian, I seek truth--to the extent it can be found. I do not believe in a personified, interventionist god. I believe in a force of nature that science has not--nor do I believe ever will--really explain, but like Stephen Jay Gould, I don't think science need bother. Proving--or disproving--the existence of "god" would be a very low priority in my lab, I can tell you that.
So, recently, Daniel C. Dennett, who's work I've read and admire, had a medical problem that might have ended his life. He survived, and when he did, he thanked "goodness". I have absolutely no issue with that. I'd thank goodness, too!
Where I think he's mis-guided is in his chastising those who "prayed" for him. Oh, he's quick to say that he appreciates the thought and that he understands the urge, but he wishes they'd do something useful:
"Surely it does the world no harm if those who can honestly do so pray for me! No, I'm not at all sure about that. For one thing, if they really wanted to do something useful, they could devote their prayer time and energy to some pressing project that they can do something about."
Look, I understand what he's getting at, but c'mon. This shit is getting ridiculous. The idea of "praying" or even saying, "you're in my prayers" isn't any more "wasteful" or "useless" than saying "you're in my thoughts". Is it wasted time to take a moment and stop, reflect on the state of a close friend or loved one, whether that thought is based in religion or secular humanism? The idea that someone is wasting their time because they are offering their support in form of prayer is just plain stupid. It's no different (and I would agree no more effective) than saying, "I thought about you today."
Yes, yes, I understand that if you're a friend of Dennett and you know that he would feel the best way to honor or express care for him was plowing into your work and getting something remarkable done, well, by golly, that's what you should do. But again, I'm calling bullshit. Humans, whether they believe in "god" or not should care about each other and the people in their lives. When they express that care as a thought, gesture or even--gasp--a prayer, it's never useless and it's never a waste of time.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (5)
October 25, 2006
Dawkins is a Good Read. And Wrong
Richard Dawkins is undoubtedly a very smart man, much smarter than me. However, his recent entry on the Huffington Post I found to be quite lacking.
First, he starts off with the misstatement that America was "founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment," which I think romanticizes the founding of America a great deal. Not to mention that the country may have been "founded" by those fleeing religious persecution, but they didn't waste much time persecuting those who held different beliefs. Dawkins paints this picture of a rosy secular republic with the Founding Fathers welcoming and tolerant to all differing religious views. Bollocks. The reason the founding fathers were so adamant to separate church and state wasn't as much to keep church out of government as it was to keep government out of church. If Dawkins can say, with a straight face, that the founding fathers would have been open to all sects of Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Islam, Mormonism, etc. then I'll stand up and call him a bald faced liar. To say that our modern political system would "horrify" the Founding Fathers presumes that the Founding Fathers would not also have been "horrified" by things like abortion and gay marriage. I am fairly certain that would have been equally horrified by both.
Dawkins is correct, however, that there is a rising element of what I consider a specific brand of American Christian Fundamentalism that is definitely a cause for concern--among true Christians and non-Christians alike. These people, often in the guise of Christianity, pervert the very Bible they purport to worship for the sake of advancing their own political agenda and often engage in a form of worship that I can't really fathom, which seems to include ignoring the poor and worshiping the dollar. But that's not really the focus of Dawkins post.
Instead, Dawkins purports to engage reason and the scientific mind to conclude that, in all probability, there is no god. But he proceeds to offer evidence that is, frankly, irrelevant.
Turning to British leadership analogies as only a Brit could, Dawkins outlines the Chamberlain and Churchill schools of dealing with the 'threat' of religion to science (again, as if this threat were something new and endemic to America. Galileo might differ with Dawkins on this.)
Dawkins then goes on to criticize rational scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould, who understood that science cannot affirm or deny the existence of the supernatural, nor need they bother. That's because Dawkins and the Fundamentalist Atheist movement are as zealous and mis-guided as the Fundamentalist Christian's they oppose. Both of them have abandoned the core of the belief system they purport to adhere to and make gigantic leaps from reason.
Dawkins starts off in the right direction: that the existence of a deity (or deities, if you rather) can be viewed as a scientific hypothesis. I agree. In fact, to me, it's very much like the quest for a unified theory in physics. But that's where Dawkins makes a huge mistake: he concludes that "a universe with a god would be a completely different universe from one without". Really? Why is that so? I say that a universe with a god could be exactly like one without one. It really depends on the nature of the god you believe in, doesn't it?
Dawkins seems to think that if there is a god, it must be an interventionist god. That god would be evidenced by a righteous display of his powers, healing the sick, blowing shit up or something. I don't really know. As an example, he offers that if there were some kind of DNA evidence that Jesus did, in fact, not have a father and had a virgin mother, that the religious community (which he's lumped now with anyone who agrees with Gould's NOMA) would rush to embrace the science. Right off the bat, Dawkins is trying to attack Fundamentalism but failing to properly define the scope of his inquiry. You can't disprove one religion's god based on the fundamental assumptions of another religions belief. Not all religions are incompatible with scientific inquiry or evolution. It's too bad, in attempting to prove or disprove his hypothesis, Dawkins never actually bothers to define the "god" he's attempting to disprove.
He makes an attempt. He mentions that if your view of "god" is one of "love, nature, goodness, the universe and the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity" then his previous diatribe doesn't apply. What he misses is that to many Christians, god is both personified and the embodiment of those things. Now, personally, I don't believe in a personified, interventionist god. But Dawkins really makes a critical error, one I see atheists making all the time, by distinguishing the two.
At heart of the debate between the religious and the non-religious is something that Dawkins does touch on: "we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things. Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem." Which is precisely the basis of the theory he's supposed to be addressing. He goes on to point out, rightly so, "Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it." That's where he slips up. He's assuming that "god" is a "complex and statistically improbable thing" and that since these things are the product of evolution, they "cannot be responsible for designing it."
That may be true, but now, he's attacking Intelligent Design. He's assuming, and he makes a lot of assumptions--most of which are based in Fundamentalism, that if there were a god who created the universe, that it must have been designed. Because when physicists smash atoms into each other in a supercollider, the sub-atomic particles that result are always exactly what they expected.
But, in fact, most of the Christians I know don't believe in intelligent design. They believe in evolution and they've read Darwin (many even read Dawkins). Certainly Dawkins hangs with a different crowd than I do, but something tells me neither one of us is down with the Creflo Dollar crew. That's the problem. Dawkins says it's improbable that there's a god because all of the complexities of life are numerous and unlikely to have been designed. Therefore, no god could have been complex enough to create all this, so no god exists. Q.E.D. Very nice. But very wrong. He's looking in the wrong place for his evidence.
He hits on the kernel of what should be the starting point of scientific investigation when he says "Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem." That's where the answer lies, if there is an answer. Looking to evolution for the proof of existence or non-existence of god is looking in the wrong place. Evolution doesn't have to be incompatible with god. Dawkins isn't even asking the right questions, let alone looking at proper evidence.
If you want to believe that the universe was created by a god/gods and that it has since evolved into what it is, that's fine with me. If you want to believe that the universe is pure random happenstance, that is also fine with me. If you want to believe that we ride on the back of a great tortoise I also am okay with that. But what really, really irritates me is zealotry. And I see Dawkins and his ilk engaging in the exact same kind of religious zealotry as Fundamentalist Christians, but they call their religion "Science". What's shameful about that is it's a perverted science, as sure as "Fundamentalism" is a perverted Christianity. It's zealotry, pure and simple. It's low-down, dirty partisan politics. It's intellectually dishonest.
The honest answer is: we can't prove god exists and we can't prove that god does not exist. Both the existence and non-existence of God are competing scientific hypotheses which are, at least in the foreseeable future, unlikely to be proved or disproved. Not that it can't be valid scientific inquiry, I think it can. But before Dawkins can spout off evidence supporting his theory, it would be more productive to actually define which theory of god he's actually attacking.
If you ask me, though, it's a tremendous waste of his time and energy, not to mention his intellect. Instead of worrying about whether or not there is a god, the right thing to do is to stop wasting time and effort attempting to convert the religious to atheism and to focus on stopping the rise of Fundamentalism that perverts science, humanity and religion.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
October 10, 2006
What it means to be a liberal.
Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at UC, does an outstanding job of outlining some beliefs that he believes define a modern liberal in, What it means to be a liberal. I think he's off to a pretty good start.
Personally, I agree most with #4.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
October 9, 2006
Ed Gillespie Speaks the Truth!
Ed Gillespie--one of the authors of the Contract with America, on which House Republicans ran in 1994--says, "Our party is still better when it comes to spending than the Democrats..."
Ain't that the truth? Spend, spend, spend... that's all the current bunch of Republicans can do these days. Hello record deficits! Oh, and covering up creepy sex scandals...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
October 3, 2006
The Amended of Contract with America
With absolutely no apologies to Dick Armey or Newt Gingrich, I present to you, the latest campaign rhetoric from the Republican majority... the Amended Contract With America.
Republican Amended Contract with America
As Republican Members of the House of Representatives seeking to retain control of that body, we pledge to maintain it's corrupt policies, and even more important, to continue to destroy the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we intend to evade and posture to an unprecedented degree, and offer a written commitment with plenty of partisan fine print.
This year's election offers the chance, after over a decade of one-party control, to maintain the status quo and continue to make an even greater mess of the way Congress works. We will continue with government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. We will continue to degrade and mock the values and faith of the American family.
Like Bush, our current Republican president, we intend to act with reckless abandon, content in the knowledge that we know best how to line our own pockets with your money and erode your civil liberties. To ignore accountability in Congress. To continue the cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make a mockery of the way free people govern themselves.
On the first day of the 110th Congress, we, the Republican majority will immediately pass the buck and take no responsibility, aimed at abusing the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
- FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country no longer apply to Congress, since they already don't apply to the President;
- SECOND, suspend any efforts to audit Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
- THIRD, eliminate the House Ethics committee;
- FOURTH, increase the number of former Republican Party members among highly-paid lobbyists by 75%;
- FIFTH, ban public committee hearings, in the name of national security;
- SIXTH, require all Congressional are records off-limits, for matters of national security;
- SEVENTH, cover up any and all scandals involving pederast members of our own party;
- EIGHTH, continue to pass legislation supporting any potentially illegal or unconstitutional programs supported by the current administration.
Within the first 100 days of the 110th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be passed in the middle of the night, with no debate. Each to be given an up or down vote and each to be severely redacted from public inspection and scrutiny, you know, for matters of national security.
-
1. THE FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY ACT: An act which will ban limits on the federal deficit. As our great leader Dick Cheney has said, "Deficits don't matter."
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: Suspending the writ of habeas corpus, because not everyone needs to have their day in court.
3. THE PERSONAL IRRESPONSIBILITY ACT: Suspending most of the criminal code from application to Members of Congress and their staff.
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Comprehensive legislation aimed at tackling the problem of Gay Marriage once and for all. Includes special provisions for Heterosexual Marriage to lower the divorce rate from 85% to a respectable 75%.
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: Sweeping immigration legislation that will immediately deport all illegal aliens and revert naturalized citizens and "Green Card" holders to the status of indentured servitude for a period of 10-20 years to lessen any potential economic impact.
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: All political speech, writing and thought will be subject to review by the NSA to protect America from the terrorist threat facing our nation today. Wiretapping becomes mandatory under special "freedom preservation" provisions.
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS ACT: Social Security and Medicare reform top our aggressive agenda. To best address the problem, this act will require the forcible termination of citizens who reach 65 years of age, thus solving both problems decisively.
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Elimination of all income taxes for small business owners with net worth over 50 million dollars who employ 15,000 or more U.S. Citizens. Also eliminates all capital gains tax for those with investments totaling more than 1.5 million.
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: Eliminates Federal Jurisdiction for all cases except those dealing with national security, which will be handled by a secret NSA Tribunal.
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATOR ACT: Changes the voting for Congressional Terms from a positive vote (requiring citizens to vote for a candidate) to a negative vote (requiring citizens to vote incumbents out of office). Constitutionally approved by the Attorney General.Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and to increase our budget, beyond the bloat specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that our district pork projects like bridges to nowhere remain fully funded.
Laughing derisively at the expense of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate to continue riding the country to hell in a hand basket, we hereby pledge our names to this Amended Contract with America.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 31, 2006
I am really starting to like Keith Olbermann
Seriously. This commentary on Rumsfeld is brilliant. As is his closing quote, from Edward R. Murrow. It's as true today--maybe even more--as when Murrow said it:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men; Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular."
--Edward R. Murrow
[Via Crooks and Liars]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 16, 2006
Macaca? Caca
I've seen a lot of press recently about the whole "macaca incident" lately and I've found something pretty disturbing to me about it that the MSM doesn't seem to have really picked up on.
It seems everyone is concentrating on the "macaca" remark and ignoring what I think is a bigger transgression.
For the moment, let's assume that Sidarth actually had a mohawk (which he doesn't). Let's also assume that Allen's mother wasn't of French/Tunisian descent where the "macaca" term is used as a racial slur (which she is). Or that Sidarth hadn't introduced himself by name to Allen earlier in the week (which he did). And let's give him the benefit of the doubt for not being stupid enough to call a guy you know is videotaping you for your opponents campaign a "shithead" on tape (which is what Allen supporters are now actually claiming).
Yes, if we ignore all that, there's still a big problem if you ask me. It's Allen's second comment, "Welcome to America". Not that it's okay for a politician to use a racial slur or to call someone a shithead, but c'mon. In this day and age, to point to someone who has darker skin and "Welcome" them to America??! What the hell is that about? First, the facts show it's a ridiculous assumption to make: Sidarth hails from the distant, mysterious land of... Fairfax County, Virginia. Second, it shows an incredible lack of judgment, to pander to a rural, mostly (if not all) white audience by lambasting "the immigrant". With immigration issues and integration issues so at the front of national debate, even if Sidarth were an immigrant it would have been in poor taste.
So the right can defend "macaca" all they want, if you ask me. Maybe it was racist, maybe it wasn't. We'll probably never know. But bottom line: it was stupid and inappropriate. And when George Allen made the comment he knew he was being videotaped by his opponent and he still did it. If that doesn't show you aren't intelligent enough to serve in the U.S. Senate, I don't know what does.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
July 11, 2006
Hey, Alaska, what's with this dude?!
Dear Alaska,
I always thought you were pretty cool. I love that "Deadliest Catch" show on Discovery. You've got caribou and oil and crabs (the good kind). Wow, is there nothing you can't do?
Apparently, elect a competent Senator. Seriously, have you *listened* to Ted Stevens lately? Really listened to him? You know, the rest of us down here are beginning to wonder if you're feeling alright, Alaska. You aren't yourself lately. This guy is representing you to the whole nation, nay--the world. That whole "Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco, and now this.
Seriously, we like you. We don't like to see you keep hurting yourself. Ted Stevens may have done some good in the past 37 years, but it's time you took the keys away from Grandpa before he drives the car off the road again. It's sweet that you're all sentimental, but if you don't act now, he's going to end up hurting someone seriously--maybe even himself.
I know it's hard, but you are rugged folk. You know how to make the tough decisions and do what's right. Get rid of this guy before he makes _Alaska_ look more like the "Nation's Wang" than Florida.
Sincerely,
Dave!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
May 4, 2006
Jane Siberry Gets It
Jane Siberry gets it. Not only is she a great musician, she's obviously on the ball when it comes to electronic distribution, too. Her on-line music store offers four different levels to pay:
- Free (A Gift From Jane)
- Suggested Price (.99)
- Pay Later (Download Now, Pay Only If You Like It)
- Pay a "Self-Determined" Amount (More or Less Than Suggested)
You know what? The store stats show that only 17% download for free, while of those paying, 79% paid the suggested price, 14% paid above the suggested price, and only 8% paid below the suggested price. And all of this is for MP3s with no "Digital Rights Management" restrictions, etc.
Record companies should take note: people want to do the right thing and compensate the artists they love. But they want to be able to use the songs where and how they want. See what happens when artists trust fans? They make money.
[Via Boing Boing]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
April 27, 2006
Breaking News! Dana Milbank Discovers Hypocrites on Capitol Hill!
Prepare to be shocked... Dana Milbank of the Washington post has discovered that our politicians are saying one thing, and doing another!
I am truly, truly gobsmacked.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
March 20, 2006
Happy Anniversary!
It's been three years since the start of the Iraq "War".
Happy Anniversary, Bush Adminstration!
Has it been everything you'd hoped it would be and more?
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
March 17, 2006
Over 9 Trillion Served or Is That Servitude?
Yesterday, the Republican controlled Congress upped the U.S. Credit Limit to 9 Trillion Dollars rather than cut spending or eliminate tax breaks that by their own admission account for 30% of the increase in the Federal debt!
Senator Hip O'Crit (R-LalaLand) said, "Sure, a decade ago we had a contract with America. But clearly, it was a bad deal for us, so now we have to go back and amend it. Thankfully, we're completely unchecked by these knock-kneed 'Spendocrats'."
Asked if he thought it might send the wrong message to the American public, that rather than control spending and get the budget under control, the easy answer is to just keep running up debt, Sen. Backslap McLobbyist (R-Cronyville) said, "What, you want us to belt tighten? Have you seen our pork bellies?! Hey, it's good to be King! Er, I mean, we wouldn't want a government shutdown, now would we? Hmm? Are you a terrorist?!"
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
March 8, 2006
Take “unpatriotic” and shove it.
"This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass."
God, I love Molly Ivins. Finally, someone has articulated my complete and utter frustration with the Democratic Party.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
February 25, 2006
Florida: The Nation's Wang
Some disturbing video on how not to manage a relationship with the citizens police "serve and protect."
So what do you think should happen to the officer who touches his gun and says, "One more step forward, and you'll see what happens. Take one more step forward," or the officer that threatens to give the citizen a ticket? Personally, I think they should lose their jobs. Period. There's a follow-up in Part II which results in a whole lotta, "no comment."
[Via Boing Boing]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
January 26, 2006
John Kerry: Still Irrelevant After All These Years...
So, John Kerry is calling for a filibuster of Alito. I don't speak for the whole Democratic party, but I have a feeling there are a lot of liberal Democrats (sometimes) out there like me. So I'd just like to say for the record:
John, we barely supported you then, and we sure wish you would just go away. We need new, fresh leadership with genuine ideas to turn around a party in crisis, not rabble rousing suicide missions that won't accomplish anything of value. You're wasting political capital. Challenge Bush on breaking Federal Law, find an issue that will stick and that won't be at best a waste of time and energy and at worst a galvanizing event for the Republicans. Seriously: please, shut up.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
December 7, 2005
It's always Christmas time (for Visa)
From the folks that brought us Progenitorivox (Consumers Union) comes a holiday song, "It's Always Christmas Time (for Visa)". It's a catchy tune with an even better message...
[Via the folks at M+R Strategic Services]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
November 8, 2005
Mouths Wide Open
This morning on NPR, I heard about the "Army Men Project" and I just had to know more. You need to know more, too. Visit mouthswideopen.com and Bring Them Home.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (4)
October 5, 2005
Integrity
It's nice to see some in the music business:
"People lost their virginity to this music, got high for the first time to this music," Densmore said. "I've had people say kids died in Vietnam listening to this music, other people say they know someone who didn't commit suicide because of this music�. On stage, when we played these songs, they felt mysterious and magic. That's not for rent."
That's Doors drummer John Densmore on his refusal to license "Break on Through (to the Other Side)" to Cadillac, even though they offered the Doors $15M for the song. Rock 'n roll, man, rock 'n roll.
[Via Boing Boing]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
October 4, 2005
Harriet Miers
Blah blah blah Harriet Miers blah blah blah.
Let's do the numbers:
| SCOTUS Judicial Experience1 | ||
| Experience | Number of Justices | Percentage |
| None2 | 26 | 23.85% |
| Political3 | 24 | 22.02% |
| Solicitor General | 3 | 2.75% |
| Attorney General | 9 | 8.26% |
| Governor | 4 | 3.67% |
| Senator | 7 | 6.42% |
| President | 1 | 0.92% |
| State Court Judges | 42 | 38.53% |
| Federal District Judges | 7 | 6.42% |
| Federal Appeals Court Judges | 27 | 24.77% |
| Judical Experience Total | 76 | 69.72% |
1All data from the Oyez Project
2No significant political experience as defined by the category breakout following
3Total based on the category breakout
I have a complete breakdown by Justice in this spreadsheet for the geeky amoung you.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
September 28, 2005
Hallelujah!
Tom "The Hammer" Delay is gonna face the hammer of justice.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
September 7, 2005
Olbermann Swings
I'm not normally a fan of Keith Olbermann, but in his latest commentary, he has some real gems, like:
[M]ost chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection � or at least amelioration � against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological. It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.
And should you need further evidence that our leader is, well, isn't a leader, compare just about anything he's ever said to this quote from Winston Churchill:
The responsibility of government for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence.
There's also a full transcript of Olbermann's commentary at MSNBC.
[Via Boing Boing]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
September 4, 2005
What is going on?
Landrieu Implores President to 'Relieve Unmitigated Suffering;' End FEMA's 'Abject Failures'.
This certainly underscores the notion that the President is completely botching this disasster, that we need an effective leader, and that FEMA is woefully unprepared to deal with anything.
However, two days prior to this press release, Landrieu was telling Anderson Cooper that the President "knows those details" and "knows that people are suffering" and "I want to thank the President".
Posted by Dave! Permalink
September 2, 2005
Anderson Cooper: Awesome
It's about time the press started taking politicians to task for all their glad handing in the face of this disaster. Check out Anderson Cooper going off on Sen. Landrieu (WMV or QT). Go, Anderson! About f'ing time.
[Via Crooks and Liars]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
August 16, 2005
Gas!
Wow. Just got back from an extended trip to the UK and when I got into my car yesterday, I discovered I needed gas. So I went to the gas station and was floored: Gas was 2.79 a gallon!
I will say though, that in the global perspective, that's still a deal. In London, I noticed gas prices between 93p and 95p per liter. That works out to 3.52GBP per gallon, which in U.S. dollars right now is about $6.35. So I think I'll stop my whining. At that rate, it would be over $100 to fill up my Volvo!
It does make me wish that Chicago had better mass transit, though. As nice as the El is, there aren't enough lines that are convenient (in fact, none go to the area where I work). And the buses are not only slow--they still run on dino-fuel. It was pretty amazing how easy it is to not have a car in London compared to Chicago. Not that a car is essential in Chicago--but it is very convenient. In London (and I was working--not being a tourist) I barely noticed.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
July 13, 2005
Bush and Rove, Sittin' in a Tree...
President Bush is neither a friend of, nor loyal to the American People.
When Bush welcomed an investigation into the Plame leak back in 2004, he said, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
Last week, Bush let us know, "I'm loyal to my friends." (Defending Alberto Gonzales)
So clearly, unless Karl Rove is charged with a crime related to the leak, it doesn't matter if he confirmed the story for reporters or if he actually told Novak everything. None of it matters because Bush places his loyalty to his friends above his loyalty to the American People.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
July 12, 2005
Karl Rove
Is he a yeller-bellied, two-timing, no good scoundrel who will
stop at nothing?
That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
July 6, 2005
Congressional Idiocy: HR3073
Remember that pledge by some radicals to "reign in judicial activism"? Well, here comes the "Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2005". (a.k.a. H.R. 3073)
Make no mistake this bill would give Congress the power to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court. Yes, I swear, you can't make this shit up. And the bill already has fifteen co-sponsors! If you live in one of their districts, you should definitely place a call or write a letter to let them know that you, um, still believe in the Constitution and checks on power!
Ernie equates this bill to legislative "spam". I'm more in line with Terry who says, "In my humble opinion, this is not just a bad bill. It�s immoral, unethical and down right terrifying."
Posted by Dave! Permalink
May 31, 2005
It's Official: Felt Was 'Deep Throat'
Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee have confirmed: W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat'. I think Bradlee summed it up best, when he said, "The thing that stuns me is that the goddamn secret has lasted this long."
One of the best kept secrets in all of Washington. Now, maybe we can solve the number one secret: who shot Kennedy?
Posted by Dave! Permalink
May 19, 2005
Who is Being Obstructionist?
The Republican leadership would like Americans to believe that the Democrats are being unreasonable and obstructionist. But we're not stupid. Look at the numbers:
Since Bush took office, he has made 218 judicial nominations and the Senate has confirmed 208 of them. Ten, including Owen, failed to win confirmation because of Democratic filibusters. Seven of those 10 were renominated at the start of this year. [Chicago Tribune]
So, "let's do the numbers". The Senate, Democrats and all, have approved 95% of Bush's judicial appointees. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership wants to destroy hundreds of years of Senate tradition. Makes sense to me. Especially when the hypocrite leader of the anti-filibuster movement has supported the filibuster in the past.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
May 12, 2005
Where was your president?
When 9/11 happened, he was busy reading My Pet Goat. Yesterday, while his wife was whisked away to a secret location and the entire Capitol was evacuated, the president finished his leisurely bike ride and wasn't even notified until the incident was over. Scott McClellan might not think that's a big deal, but I think it's time to re-evaluate those "protocols".
Posted by Dave! Permalink
May 10, 2005
Holy Crap! I'm a Liberal!
Well, duh.
[Via ambivalent imbroglio]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
May 9, 2005
Hillary Rosen: Idiot
Hillary Rosen announces to the world that she is at best an idiot, at worst, a hypocrite. Yes. This is that Hillary Rosen.
[Via Boing Boing]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
May 8, 2005
Close your eyes, it can't happen here...
This should be frightening the hell out of every citizen.
Update: Bruce Schneier on the REAL ID act. Why it will cost a lot of money without making any of us safer.
[Update via beSpacific]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
April 19, 2005
Free Government Ringtones!
Yes! Free Government Ringtones, you know, for kids!
They are about as good as government cheese. Wait, I think these are government cheese. Oh no, they are the latest appeal from Uncle Sam to help kids get the message that saying no to drugs is cool. I particularly love this copy:
"We bet that you�re getting sick of hearing Justin, 50 cent, or Ring 5 every time one of your buddies calls."
Yeah... because teens hate conformity and popular music. They would much rather have lame ass tones produced by bureaucrats!
My favorite is "Pick up your phone". That one is begging for an industrious teen to mix to say, "Hey, pick up your phone... biatch."
Update: It gets even better! You can get free anti-drug graphics for your website! Now who thought up, "Life: my anti-drug"... sheesh, it's the existential crisis of adolescence that drives most of the kids to drugs in the first place.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
The Most Intelligent Thing Ann Coulter has Ever Said
"My feet are the size of the Atlantic Ocean and my head the size of a pea."
(Commenting on her Time Magazine cover photo. Sounds pretty much like a whiney liberal, doesn't she?)
Posted by Dave! Permalink
April 18, 2005
This Post is Rated NC-17
Give me a f*ing break.
Hey, MPAA: bite me.
[Via Tech Law Advisor]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
April 14, 2005
Tom Delay: Batsh*t Crazy
The man is really frightening. Check out his latest interview in the Washington Times. Batshit crazy:
"The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop [the courts]. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them."
There you have it, folks: Tom Delay doesn't want you to have a right to privacy; he would rather have Congress control your lives.
Um, where is big government involvement in private matters in the Republican Party Platform? I must have missed it. Shouldn't the Republicans start stepping up and policing their own ranks? This guy is out of control...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
April 11, 2005
Fellow Republicans On Delay
Apparently, some fellow Republicans are starting to distance themselves from Tom Delay.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
April 8, 2005
Seriously...
This guy is a nutbar. They say absolute power corrupts absolutely. Clearly, there is a bad apple leading our Congress. We the People, need to put a stop to this.
Update: Wow. Even Prof. Bainbridge is having doubts about Delay. That simply cannot bode well.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
April 6, 2005
Comeuppance
Some USA Today Poll Numbers:
- 53% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the Schiavo case
- 76% of Americans disapprove of Congress' handling of the Schiavo case
- By a 2-1 margin, Americans feel the religious right has too much influence in the Bush administration
- 55% view the Republican Party as the party of government intervention into their personal lives
- 53% view the Democratic Party as not-interfering with moral issues
And house majority leader Tom Delay is in hot water again (NYT). Apparently his wife and daughter have been paid more than half a million dollars by his PAC since 2001.
Sounds like it is time to start holding the "moral majority" to some actual moral standards. The momentum against these cretins seems to be building... let's keep it going.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
April 1, 2005
Have You Seen This Man?
The DNC offers Scandal Man: A Guide to the Ethics Violations, Abuses of Power, and Corruption of House Majority Leader Tom Delay.
[Via Kristyna]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
Public Enemy Number One: Tom Delay
It appears I am not the only person out there who has lost their patience with the hypocrisy of Tom Delay. Yesterday, the Public Campaign Action Fund released a television ad they are going to be running to put pressure on Congress to look into Mr. Delay's ethical transgressions. His response? "Bring it on... [m]y constituents know what's going on."
So, apparently, it is on.
The PCAF also has a blog, the Daily Delay to track the wheelings and dealings of the man from Sugar Land.
Salon has a couple of good summaries of Delays ethics violations (at least the ones we know about so far): All About Delay and Tom Delay's Funny Money Trail.
There's a lot of irony in a Republican leader who helped kill federalism. And Dahlia Lithwick has a great editorial over at Slate, in which she points out that Mr. Delay, a champion of the "sanctity of marriage" doesn't care about the sanctity of the Schiavo's marriage. ("I don't care what her husband says.")
Apparently, Mr. Delay doesn't care about the separation of powers, checks and balances, or the U.S. Constitution, either. He's now on a campaign questioning the actions of the Federal judges in the Schaivo case. The judges that upheld the law. The law of the United States. This has got to be stopped. It's more than political rhetoric; it's dangerous. Mr. Delay, I hope you're listening: if anything happens to any of those Federal justices in the way of vigilante violence, their blood will be on your hands and on the hands of any member of Congress who supports you.
Nick Penniman, program director at the Campaign For America's Future, has a great editorial on TomPaine.com about how Tom Delay is a complete disgrace to the Republican Party and why they shouldn't bother defending him.
It's not only time for the Republicans to stop defending this cretin. It's time for the rest of us to step up our diligence in making sure that they get the message loud and clear that we won't tolerate this nonsense from our leaders. I sincerely hope Mr. Delay is dead wrong and that his constituents don't know what's going on. Because if they do, and they continue to support a man like Tom Delay, I'm afraid for us all.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
March 30, 2005
Florida: The Nation's Wang
Not that there was much doubt about the fact that Florida, on the whole, sucks. But here's another nail in the coffin...
[Via Katelog]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
NPR Commentary...
Yesterday, on All Things Considered I heard a great commentary by Ian Wrisley, a minister, about his feelings re: Ten Commandments displays at government buildings. I thought it was very insightful, picking up on a point that many Christians seem to overlook; when the government adopts religion, it doesn't promote faith: it promotes government.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
March 8, 2005
Progenitorivox
Consumers Union has a hillarious "commercial" for the non-existant drug Progenitorivox. The song is catchy and the animation is great...
[Via Cartoon Brew]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 6, 2005
Low Moments in Super Bowl Advertisting
Winner: Anheuser-Busch
The ad was a "Thank you" to our troops, it featured an airport full of people applauding as troops, presumably returning from the Gulf, got off their plane. Where are the troops who are missing arms and legs? Or the casket draped coffins?
Whether you opposed the war or supported it, the ad was in bad taste. Anheuser-Busch was exploiting the image of our armed forces to sell beer.
Runner-Up: Fox
For using "Sunday Bloody Sunday" as the "theme music" for a Super Bowl promo spot. Catholic or Protestant, on the actual Bloody Sunday (January 30, 1972) over a dozen protesters lost their lives when fired upon by occupying British army soldiers. In 1998, Tony Blair opened a new inquiry to try to determine the truth of what happened that day--the new report is scheduled to be issued in 2005. Using it to promote football is just in bad taste.
Honorable Mention: Las Vegas
"What happens here, stays here?" Do they really want that to be their slogan?! It conjures images of dead mob informants, rotting in the dessert. Or soulless husks debased by gambling or alcohol addictions. I mean, c'mon, how "Leaving Las Vegas" do they want their image to be??
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
February 3, 2005
Which one?
"Mr. Martinez, Republican of Florida, made his debut speech on the floor in both English and Spanish, telling Hispanic Americans that Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's nominee to be attorney general, is 'one of us.'"
Now which "one" do you suppose he really meant? Rich? Republican? Shady member of the Washington power-elite?
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
February 2, 2005
Warren Buffett is cool...
...no, seriously. He's cool. Check out some highlights from his conversation with Darren Johnson.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
November 17, 2004
Uhhh...
Yeah. Uhhh... Sure, dude, whatever:
Kerry Says He's Not Ruling out Another Run
He couldn't beat monkeyboy, and he thinks we'd support him against someone who is actually likeable, like, oh, say John McCain? Or Rudy Giuliani? Puh-lease.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
November 11, 2004
An Open Letter to MoveOn.org
[I received a letter today from MoveOn.org, asking me to sign a petition to try to get Congress to investigate the election. This is my response. -Ed.]
Dear MoveOn,
I think it's time to move on. Seriously.
Were there voting irregularities in the 2004 election? There almost certainly were. Were these irregularities worse than other elections? Probably not. Electioneering has a much longer tradition in America than the 2004 presidential race. I live in Chicago, where we have a fine tradition of that.
But no manner of outcry from the liberal half of the country about voter fraud or rigging the election is going to change the outcome. No magic scandal is going to cause the party that now holds the executive, legislative, and is working towards the judiciary from reigning for another four years. It's crying over spilt milk.
We now have a critical choice before us: we can spend our money, our time, and our energy engaged in bitter disputes about the perceived wrongs of this election or we can turn to the future. I vote for the future.
If we put this election behind us and took the energy many are now expending trying to challenge it, and instead, focus on making our message clear, reorganizing the leadership of the DNC/DLC, and getting back to the core values that we all believe in--there is no limit to what we can accomplish!
Or we can spend then next four years mired in the past, wallowing in our own self-pity, and watch as the Republicans gain even more control in the House and the Senate and as the religious right joins forces to try to inflict their will on the 48% of American's who didn't give a "mandate" to Bush and his policies. The right has its sights set on the future and here we are, trying to fight them in the past.
I've supported MoveOn in the past and I had hoped it would continue to be an organization dedicated to forward thinking and change.
Seriously: move on.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
November 9, 2004
More Election Maps
Some folks at the University of Michigan have developed some more 2004 Election maps that help put the "mandate" in perspective.
[Via Rain Man]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
John Ashcroft Resigns!
Maybe there is a god after all?!
Update: The CNN story is here.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
Thomas Jefferson
"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt......If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."
Thomas Jefferson
(1789 letter on the passage of the Sedition Act)
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 7, 2004
Religion and Voting
A very interesting graphic showing the breakdown of voting areas based on religion:
[Via Dual Coasts]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 5, 2004
Elections and IQ
Heh. Here's a chart that shows the average population IQ and how that state voted in the 2004 U.S. Election.
[Via del.icio.us]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 4, 2004
Red and Blue America? No. Purple.
I'm sick and tired of the talk about how the Democrats are "out of the mainstream" and how this is a mandate of the people. This is all divisive bullshit. If you look at the standard electoral map, you get this sense of overwhelming red with pockets of blue. The truth is that there are "red" and "blue" people everywhere. America is purple.
This map shows how we voted, county by county, instead of state by state.
Revealing, isn't it?
[Map via Robert J. Vanderbei]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
Where do we go from here?
Like many liberals out there, I watched the polls last night with anticipation and steadily growing disappointment. I share the sentiment of disappointment in having worked so hard only to fall short of victory. However, I do think it is vitally important that we not lose sight of this election and what it means for our country.
Already there is talk of the liberal base and the young voters giving up on the political process; as if those of us who aren�t on the right can�t take a minor set-back. We are supposed to just give up. Our despair and apathy are supposed to get the better of us. I think that is flat out ridiculous. Sure, we might be down, but we are sure as hell not out.
Now is not the time to give up, now is the time to fight harder for the values that we believe in. Conservatives don�t have a lock on moral values. I don�t need to remind Christians that Jesus was the ultimate liberal. The religious right claims this election as a moral victory, but I just cannot bring myself to view this election in those terms. There is nothing moral about Bush�s war. There is nothing moral about a thousand of our troops dead and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed. There is nothing moral about destroying our environment for the almighty dollar. And there is certainly nothing moral in thirteen states denying the rights of family minded, upstanding members of the communities on the basis of their sexual preferences.
I never in my life thought I would quote Al Sharpton, but he�s right: it�s time for us to stop being elephants in donkey jackets. The Republicans try to speak of a �mandate� from the people, but the race was 51% to 48%. That�s not a thrashing. That�s not a blow-out. That�s not a decisive victory. And it�s a long, long way from a mandate. Nearly half of voting America sent a clear signal to the President last night: we�ve had enough of you.
Now is not the time for us to slink away, with our tail between our legs. It�s time for us to stand tall and have our voice heard. It�s time for us to work hard to make sure our concerns are addressed and to keep this administration honest. And if the last four years should have taught us anything, keeping this bunch honest is going to be hard, hard work.
There�s a lot of speculation about why the Democrats weren�t able to rally America to defeat this President. I do not believe it has anything to do with not being able to appeal to �middle America�. I believe it has everything to do with trying to kowtow to the Republican platform. This fear of liberalism has gone too far and it�s time we stood together to put a stop to it right now. This is not a debate between the �liberal� and �moderate� wings of the party; it�s about liberals letting American know what it means to be a liberal, instead of the conservatives bad mouthing us to the American people.
What does it mean to be a liberal in America today? If you let the right define it, liberal might seem like a scary word. But for me, liberal simply means compassion — compassion for our fellow man.
Being a liberal means believing that everyone in America has the right to the education they need to build a better life, to feed and clothe their families. Being a liberal means believing all Americans should have access to healthcare. It means those who can afford to pay a little more do, because it benefits us all. It means reaching out to those less fortunate than us. It means fighting for the rights of the common man, to make sure that those in power don�t forget that America is by the people, for the people.
Being a liberal means defending the constitution and the idea that all men are created equal. All women are created equal. And those rights don�t just extend to those in power, those rights are universal. Being a liberal means fighting to protect those rights for all Americans.
Being a liberal means working hard to ensure that we don�t leave our children a worn out, used up earth. It means not abandoning our future, destroying our planet, and sticking our children with the bill.
Being a liberal means being an idealist with ideals. Liberals are the true moral leaders of America; being liberal means fighting to make sure those in power hear the voices of the people they are meant to represent.
So, take a moment. Lick your wounds a bit. Pause. Reflect. And then gather yourselves together and prepare for the next battle. This one is shaping up to be even longer and harder than the year leading up to this election; our next battle will rage for at least four years, but there is just too much at stake for us to give up.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
November 3, 2004
Not that it matters...
Because I think Kerry has lost. However, the official website for the Ohio Secretary of State shows that Bush's lead is 136,483 votes. They also show that there are currently 135,149 Provisional Ballots out... and there are still 10 counties that aren't included in the Provisional Ballot Total. So, while it is highly unlikely that Kerry would take Ohio, it is not "statistically impossible".
Posted by Dave! Permalink
Election Night Observations
Some general observations about the current U.S. Presidential Election:
1. Wolf Blitzer is retarded. And I mean no disrespect to the retarded, but seriously, why in the hell is Wolf the lead CNN anchor on this? How many times can we watch Jeff Greenfield shake his head in the background as Wolf fumbles yet another fact? Someone give Anderson Cooper one of those big hooks so he can pull Wolf off stage.
2. CNN has reverb "Spacial Logic' reverb. And what, might you ask, is "Spacial Logic"? Why, it's a color coded map. Holy shit! That is some truly, truly amazing technology. A color coded map of the state, broken down by county. I hope someone has patented this modern marvel.
3. Is Larry King senile? He can't seem to grasp simple math. Larry's quote of the night, "So why are we here?" Good question, Larry, good question.
4. Okay, what the hell is with these analysts who say that this is a decisive victory for Bush??! American politics has become so perverted that a 3-4% margin is now "substantial"? Where did the Democrats "go wrong"? Apparently, about 50% of American voters which is, um, roughly half don't think the Democrats did go wrong.
5. Thank god J. Kenneth Blackwell knows how to dress and not come off like a hysterical partisan hack. Even though I'm a "liberal," after seeing him on CNN, I actually believe that he will carry out his duty as Ohio Secretary of State which integrity, which is exactly what America needs.
6. In case you wanted some official numbers:
Ohio County Breakdown
Ohio Provisional Ballots
Of course, I found this in a single Google Search. CNN can't figure out how to find out the current number of provisional ballots.
7. At least Bush will have to deal with his own Iraq mess. I hope he realizes that if you try to stomp out that burning bag on the porch, you get shit all over your shoes.
8. Come on... when James Carville is down, I think it's pretty much over. Now, I would love to be proved wrong, but I just don't think so.
9. Seriously, Jeff, the Democrats didn't "Do things wrong." A sitting, war time President won (apparently) with an approximately 3-4% margin. That's not exactly a mandate from the people nor a shocking condemnation of the Democratic platform. It is a reflection of just how divided the country is and how torn we are as a nation about terrorism vs. the economy. David Gergen keeps talking about this being a "clear mandate" but I just don't see it. 10% difference, we'll start talking. 25% difference? No question. 3-4% difference? Um, I don't think so. Geesh. Get over it.
10. Robert Novak: Douche Bag of Liberty.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 2, 2004
Are you nervous?
I am. Are you nervous? I am.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
October 21, 2004
Pirates and Emperors
Here's a pretty cute and well done animated piece called Pirates and Emperors that illustrated the critical difference between small time thuggery and large scale empire building (read: not much).
[Courtesy ambivalent imbroglio]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
October 16, 2004
Jon Stewart: American Hero
I'm sure that everyone has seen this or a reference to it someplace, but I wouldn't be a good blogger if I didn't pick up the meme and run with it.
Jon Stewart was on Crossfire the yesterday, and he ripped Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala new ones... it was pretty sweet. My favorite sound bite:
CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.
STEWART: You need to go to one.
Check it out:
What more reason do you need to love The Daily Show?
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
October 13, 2004
George Bush: Pro-life and killin' more babies than ever!
I'm not exactly pro-choice and I'm not exactly pro-life. I'm one of the vast "middle grounders" out there in America, who are just kind of sick about the whole thing because it's an un-resolvable issue. I believe:
1. Women have to carry babies and often they bear the greatest burden raising children, so who am I to force a woman to have a baby she does not want or cannot afford?
2. Adoption is a great thing, and I would certainly encourage anyone I knew who was pregnant but did not want the baby to consider it. There are a lot of good people who want children and can't have them.
3. I think abortion is killing. But there's all kinds of *justified* killing in our world: war, self-defense, accidents. Just because it's taking a life and *I* think it's morally wrong doesn't mean that I should hold everyone else to my moral standard. I think war is wrong. I think capital punishment is wrong. Obviously, I'm not doing to well on the fight to end those either.
I bring this all up because I often hear self-proclaimed "pro-life activists" say that they are voting for Bush, based on that one position alone. But tonight Rain Man posed a very interesting essay by a Christian ethicist, entitled Pro-life? Look at the Fruits which quotes some interesting statistics that show that under the Bush administration, in spite of "faith based initiatives" abortions have actually increased. Why? The economy. It's certainly worth considering. If you really want to make abortion your issue, as the article claims, it is not just a moral issue separate from the candidates other policies.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
September 30, 2004
Americans: Close-minded, conservative, and prudish?
Recently, an American ex-pat I know suggested that the majority of Americans were "close-minded, conservative, and prudish," and expressed regret at the possibility of returning.
This got me thinking a bit about how I feel about America. I've always been interested in politics, but over the past few years I've become progressively more involved, and more interested in the American political process. I have to say, that participating in it more actively has actually had the opposite effect to what I might have suspected -- I've actually become less jaded.
I think that only someone who is not in America would ever make sweeping statements about the "majority" of Americans. This country seems to be very polarized these days, on a host of issues. I also am not so sure that this is a bad thing, necessarily. Certainly, being so bitterly divided that we cannot engage in honest discourse is a bad thing. However, engaging in dialog is a good thing, and so long as we are free to engage in that dialog, I think there is hope. It is when we stop allowing the expression of ideas - even those we despise -- that we run the risk of truly becoming close-minded.
As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all the others." Democracy, and especially American democracy, is rife with problems. All governments of men are flawed. What is wonderful about democracy is that it gives us all a voice to stand up and to point out those flaws so we can work on correcting them. In fact, I think it's our duty in a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin noted, our founding fathers gave us, "[a] republic, so long as you can keep it."
So are we c