March 5, 2010
I'm running for Lt. Governor!
Well, since the Democrats in Illinois are taking on-line applications for the open spot on the ballot, I'm not really running for Lt. Governor. But I did submit my on-line application for the ballot spot. Here's what I said in my application:
I hereby pledge that if chosen to run and if elected by the People of Illinois to the office of Lieutenant Governor:
I will resign on my first day of office, which means under the Constitution of Illinois that the office will remain vacant until the next election.
This will provide time for the legislature to organize a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the office.
I will not take a salary for the office of Lt. Governor.
I will not staff the office of the Lt. Governor.
I will not spend a single dollar of the taxpayer's of Illinois hard earned money on an unnecessary elected office.
- The FY2008 cost of the office of Lt. Governor was approximately $2.4Million.
- The FY2009 cost (enacted) was $2.1 Million.
- The recommended FY2010 cost is $1.35 Million.
- Over a term of four years, I will save the citizens of Illinois over $5 Million dollars.
Although the Lt. Governor's duties include chairing several committees, I am quite confident that those committees may be served well by other members who may step up to fill the vacant chairmanship. As for succession, upon my resignation, the Attorney General would succeed the Governor should the Governor be unable/unwilling to serve.
--------------------------------
Yes, I'm doing this to make a point. I think it's a bit odd that the Democratic Party is taking applications for the nomination on-line. I also think the office of Lt. Governor is pretty unnecessary, given the extremely limited duties of the office and what it costs to run a governmental office that does so little.
But I'm also 100% serious.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 4, 2008
Yes... We Did!!!
First, I am absolutely giddy... not just because "my candidate" won the election, but because this is an historic milestone in the history of a great democracy.
Second, my wife and I had the pleasure of meeting President Elect Obama at a backyard barbecue fundraiser for his Senate campaign. It was a great experience and I need to give my wife credit... after we left that afternoon, she said, "Someday he's going to be President." She called that one...
Third, Obama probably voted for my wife! She was on the ballot in Cook County... unopposed. :)
Updates:
The Speeches. I thought John McCain's concession speech was magnanimous and very sincere. It's the first sincere thing I've heard come out of his mouth since the primaries. If he had been that open, that honest during his campaign, instead of pandering to the religious right with the Palin Pick, and launching his negative attack ads, etc. this might have been a very different election. Or at least a lot closer. Palin was a pit bull, all right, but America wanted candidates who could speak to the issues, not just parrot attack talking points. I also thought it was telling that when McCain mentioned Obama, the crowd booed... but not Obama's crowd when he mentioned McCain. I hope the vitriolic supporters of McCain take heed in this election: America is tired of hateful, divisive politics. Keep up the hate mongering, and you'll destroy your own party from within.
The Grand Old Party. Republican's have some real soul searching to do. The core of the party are white, conservative, evangelicals... not exactly a growing demographic. On NPR this morning, a Republican strategist noted that the fastest growing voter demographics in America are blacks, latinos, and young voters--all of who overwhelmingly supported Obama. Not good for the GOP future. Maybe it's time to return to a Republican party of old: the one that was less concerned with what women did with their bodies and more concerned with not inflating the national deficit. McCain's Palin pick was clearly targeted to deliver the base, which it did, but this election showed pretty clearly that the Republican base ain't all it's cracked up to be... you can't win an election in America without the center.
Hoosiers!! CNN hasn't called it yet, but with 99% of precincts reporting, Obama is up 50% to 49% (by about 23.5k votes). Hooray for Hoosiers!!
North Carolina. Liddy Dole learned what hateful, untrue attack ads get you: booted. Congrats to Kay Hagen. Another lesson for the Republican party: American's are tired of the B.S. and want some politicians who address the issues instead of attacking the opponents.
Minnesota. According to CNN, with 100% of the precincts reporting, Coleman is only beating Al Franken by 572 votes?! Wow... Recount anyone? I am disappointed that bat-sh*t crazy Bachmann didn't lose her race. After her McCarthy-esque comments, I wanted to see her go down.
Alaska. Are they nuts up there? Seriously, Alaska, you're making Florida look downright reasonable these days. Are your brains frozen?? With 99% of the precincts reporting, it looks like Alaska may have elected a convicted Felon to the Senate. I think ice must be clogging Alaskan's brain tubes.
Finally, I was really disappointed that not a single person who was featured using CNN's new "hologram" technology said, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope."
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
October 16, 2008
Joe, the plumber?
Like many of you, I suspect, I thought both McCain and Obama's constant invocation of "Joe the Plumber" to be rather gimmicky. However, there are some important issues that have come up since, related to Joe, which kind of make Joe the Plumber look a little questionable:
1. He's not a plumber. Turns out, he's not even a licensed plumber in the State of Ohio, or the county, or city where he works. I think Joe just made a lot of enemies from actual, licensed plumbers in Ohio. And probably some customers.
2. Joe's taxes would only have gone up $900. I would also add that frankly, if Joe is making $250-280k per year, I would consider that to be doing quite well and I think he could afford another $1k in taxes. That is, if he were actually a plumber. John McCain can take his smarmy "You're rich, Joe" comment and shove it. In these uncertain economic times, I know a whole lot of people who'd be very pleased to be making $250-280k.You know who is rich? John McCain. So stop with the feigned indignation, Senator McCain.
It seems to me to be quite clear that what Joe really needs isn't McCain's tax plan. He needs an accountant. I would be willing to bet that if he's figuring his own taxes, given his failures to obtain a plumbing license, he's probably overlooked some valid deductions, and that a good accountant could probably erase that $900 increase... maybe even lower his taxes. That is, if he were actually a plumber.
Disclosure: I have a plumber in my extended family. A licensed union plumber.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
October 7, 2008
Who won the debate, my friends? That one.
Dear Sen. McCain:
With all due respect, I'm not your friend. I'm a voter. Every time you say, "My friends" I think you're trying to sell me something I don't want to buy. It gets a little sleazier each time you say it.
I don't want you to be my friend and I don't want to be yours. I don't want you to attack the opposition and dance around questions: I want to hear about your policies, and I think most American's do, too. It would appear you're all out of ideas and since the Straight Talk Express went over the cliff some time ago, all you've got left is a bottle of vitrol you're trying to sell us as a campaign.
Please, give it a rest, my friend.
-Dave!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
Bailout? Shmailout.
Wait a minute. So you mean to tell me that, even though jackasses in the media insisted that the bailout was necessary to save us all from doom and that our puny middle class brains couldn't understand the gravity of the situation. Or that even though jackasses in the administration insisted that without the splurge our economy was in the crapper. And even though the fools in Congress bought into it all, and against the will of their constituents, passed a fundamentally flawed piece of garbage "bailout" bill, that we weren't greeted as liberators!? the market is still tanking?!?!
God, what is the world coming to, when I'm starting to think Lou Dobbs makes a lot of sense.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
October 2, 2008
Fools Rush In...
So, the Senate approved the "Splurge" last night... 74 to 25. Now it's the House's turn... what will they do? I suspect they'll turn tail and pass it. Sad.
Look, I am a middle class guy, living in a middle class suburb, working a middle class job. I understand the nature of the "crisis". I understand the importance of credit markets. I understand something must be done. But I also understand this is an ill-conceived, rushed solution and that there are other alternatives that should be considered and offer a better solution to the American people.
I can hardly believe it, but Sen. Shelby said it best:
"Many around here are finding comfort in the notion that 'something is better than nothing.' I believe that is a false choice. The choice we faced was between pursuing an informed response or panic. ... Unfortunately, we chose panic."
All of our elected officials seem to be running around like Chicken Little, crying about the falling sky. We don't need "bailout" plans with little to know accountability which need $150 Billion of additional pork in order to "entice" Representatives to vote for it. We need our elected representatives to sit down, gather expert opinions and formulate a rational response. I know, I'm a dreamer. Instead, we get a bad piece of legislation, so bad that one house of our Congress essentially has to bribe the other into supporting it.
Disgusting.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
September 4, 2008
Questionable Music Choices...
Okay, so I watched both the DNC and the RNC... and I have to wonder who the idiots who program the music are??
Seriously, I know her nickname is "Sarah Baraccuda" but c'mon. I mean, the lyrics to the song include:
If the real thing dont do the trick,
No, you better make up something quick,
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick,
Ooooooohhhh, barracuda.
Um, not on message. And the Democrats weren't any better. With Melissa Etheridge out there, singing "Born in the USA"... it's like no one ever listens to the lyrics to that one either:
Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years down the road
Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go
I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.
Although, while both choices are plainly stupid, nothing could be as bad as that "Raisin' McCain" song. I think I threw up a little in my mouth.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 29, 2008
Palin Problems
Okay. Let's set aside the facts she is pro-life, a lifetime member of the NRA... Palin is a disaster of a choice for vice president. Here's why:
1. Does McCain really think Palin will appeal to Hillary voters? Seriously?? It's ridiculous for someone who really believed in Hillary to support McCain in the first place. If you believed in Hillary's policies, McCain is not your man. But Palin? See my first sentence. She's a pro-life (and doesn't even support rape/incest exceptions) and lifetime member of the NRA. How on Earth does that appeal in any way to someone who supported Clinton??! When Palin gave her line about the glass ceiling, my wife turned to me in disgust and said, "That is such blatant pandering. How stupid do they think we are?"
2. I think there is some (not a lot, but surely some) validity to the argument that Obama lacks experience. However, Palin was the Mayor of a city with a population of less than 6,000. She's the Governor--only for two years--of a state with a population of less than 700,000. Palin was elected Governor after receiving 114,697 votes. Last February, my wife won her primary election here in Cook County with 302,347 votes. My wife got nearly three times as many votes in a local election. With no disrespect to Alaskans, I'm not saying the Governor of Alaska isn't an important job, but it cannot be compared with serving as a Senator for the fifth most populous state in the United States.
3. The experience thing is a big deal. I wish John McCain no ill will, but we have to acknowledge that he is 72 and will be one of the oldest presidential candidates in history. I think it's even more critical that his vice president choice is someone who can readily step into the role of President. Sarah Palin is not even close. Obama might have "little" foreign policy experience--Palin has none. She doesn't even have any national policy experience.
4. Did McCain really only meet her in person once??! That, to me, is even worse than her lack of experience. I'm sorry, I'm a pretty good judge of people, but I don't hire systems administrators without two or more interviews. He met her once?? You can talk all you want about her status and her accomplishments, but if it is true that McCain only met her once in person before making this decision then McCain definitely doesn't have the judgment to be President.
Here's the other problem--I can't believe no one has mentioned it. Everyone defending her seems to be saying, "Oh, but it doesn't matter that she's not experienced. She's an outsider! She's not some good ol' boy with 30 years in politics." I even heard one of McCain's spokespeople say that he chose a reform minded outsider while Obama chose a typical Washington insider. But, um, what is McCain??? He's been in Washington for 26 years. He's not that much of a maverick--he's a rich, old, white guy who has been in Washington for decades. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways.
I will be very interested in seeing how Palin performs on a national stage. I think the national press and the pressure of a national presidential campaign are going to eat her alive. Of course I could be wrong, but this choice has really left me scratching my head.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
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
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
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 close-minded? You tell me. The people I know aren't. Even most of the conservatives I know are not. Sure, I have met a few neo-cons who tow the party line. I've also met a few socialists who tow the party line. But more, I've met honest people, who care about their lives and their governments. These people have real, honest differences about what they feel is best for our country. Having honest differences of opinion is not being close-minded. The key is to keep our minds open to discourse, willing to look at - and consider - evidence from the opposing view which may change our own opinions. The common fallacy on the left (disclaimer: I'm a self-declared liberal) is that being close-minded is somehow limited to those on the right. In reality, I've met a great deal of close minded people who couldn't even consider the conservative view-point. In fact, true conservatives -- not necessarily the neo-con style of the current administration -- have a great deal in common with liberals. The ACLU fights vigorously to stop governmental abuses of the Constitution through vehicles such as the PATRIOT Act. And so does Bob Barr. Conservative isn't dirty word anymore than liberal is.
I'm also skeptical of the label of "prudish," mostly because it seems to just be salacious, without really raising any actual point. I can easily generate examples of "prudish" America: we allow naked females in our movies, but full frontal nudity of a man is likely to draw a stiff rebuke from the MPAA Ratings Board (pun intended). So what? We also host the largest adult entertainment industry in the world. Or is it that our nation was shocked and titillated (I'm on a roll!) when Janet Jackson shows us a bare breast? I think it's just another example of just how diverse America is. Yes, there were a number of Americans who felt that was a horrible incident. But again, a number of Americans just plain didn't care.
It's easy to some sweeping generalizations about the population and then infer that America is X or Americans are Y. The reality is that America is complex. There are a diversity of lifestyles and a diversity of opinions. We don't often agree on the issues, but that is one of the greatest aspects of America; we don't have to agree with everyone. And we are all free to participate in the system, which is, I guess, the entire point of my rant. Instead of grousing about America and Americans, if you are one, participate. Work for change. Right the wrongs. Correct the injustices. Or work to preserve a traditional way of life. Whatever issues matter most to you, pursue them, support them and tell others about them. That's what it really means to be an American: the idealism that ideas are good things, and that no matter what we do, we are free to think and consider whatever ideas we want. For now. So do what you can to encourage and participate in discourse.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
September 10, 2004
George W. Bush Bounty!
The World's Shortest Blog has an awesome bounty going. They have a collection (currently at $1220) which goes to the first person to ask George W. Bush, in a public forum, one simple question: "How many times have you been arrested, Mr. President?"
I do so hope that someone does this, on film.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
September 9, 2004
We're Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
Garrison Keillor asks, "How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich�s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?" Read his excellent essay.
[Via BEB]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
August 23, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
August 18, 2004
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!]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 10, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 9, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 6, 2004
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
Posted by Dave! Permalink
August 5, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
July 29, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
July 12, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
June 28, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
June 21, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
June 14, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
May 13, 2004
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". :)
Posted by Dave! Permalink
May 3, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
April 7, 2004
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
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 19, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
February 18, 2004
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]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
February 13, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 3, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 28, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
January 26, 2004
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
December 30, 2003
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.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
November 10, 2000
The President of the United States of America
As an American, of course I have an opinion on the current election debacle currently raging in our country. I have one thing to say, given the behavior of both the Bush and Gore campaigns: thank god I'm a Libertarian.
I can't imagine two parties acting with more shame and disgrace than the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans dancing around saying "Nah nah nah nah. The count is done, and we've won," considering that there are several thousand absentee ballots yet to be counted. It's smug. They are cheap shots. These people have no tact and are of dubious moral character. The only correct position for them to take at this point is to say, "We will patiently and respectfully wait until the State of Florida issues an Official, Certified result, based on 100% of all valid ballots counted." Period. That's all they should say, nothing more, nothing less.
And the Democrats. Oh, shame of shame. Look, I do think Gore is likely to lose this election, and unfairly so. If and only if after 100% of the entire country's popular vote is counted, and Gore does win the popular vote while losing the Electoral College vote, it will be sad, and it will be tragic, but it will be within the guidelines of our current system. In my opinion, the veiled threats of legal action and the taunts to the Bush camp cast serious doubts on the moral character of the Gore camp. The only correct position for them to take at this point is to say, "We will patiently and respectfully wait until the State of Florida issues an Official, Certified result, based on 100% of all valid ballots counted." Period. That's all they should say, nothing more, nothing less.
So, like every American, I have an opinion on what we should do. Here it is:
Both the Democrats and Republicans should remain silent until the vote count is complete, nationwide, 100% all ballots counted, and Officially Certified by the appropriate State Officials.
The voters of Palm Beach who feel that they were cheated out of a fair vote should sue, on their own with no assistance from any political party, to ensure that this never happens again. They should win their suit, and the outcome should be that split ballots and butterfly ballots are not used again, and that all voters have the right to inspect their ballots in their states well before the election day. In the future then, if they fail to do so, it will be of their own doing. That should be the end of the debate in Florida.
Assuming that the outcome of this debacle is that Gore wins the popular vote, and that Bush wins the Electoral College vote, here's what I think each camp should do:
The Gore Campaign should issue the following statement: "In the interests of what is the best course of action for the citizens of the United States, the Gore Campaign and the Democratic Party will seek absolutely no legal remedies for the outcome of this election. although we still feel that the people have spoken, as we received a majority of the popular vote, our Constitution provides that the popular vote does not elect the President of the United States. Therefore, we graciously concede the Presidency to George W. Bush. We hope that this historic election will give the citizens of the United States pause, and that the country now realizes the importance of each vote, and that we can now join forces to work for election and campaign finance reform. America is indeed a great democracy, and our ability to set aside our differences and come together to work towards a solution should now be how we prove that to the world."
The Bush Campaign should then issue the following statement: "In the interests of what is the best course of action for the United States of America, we will seek no legal action in this election whatsoever, and we graciously accept the concession of Vice President Gore. although we have not won the popular vote, our system of election provides for the Electoral College to select the President of the United States, and we rightly won the Electoral votes. The Constitution provides that the President is selected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote, and we will do our best to fill the role of the Presidency with the levity and dignity that the job requires. We hope that this historic election will give the citizens of the United States pause, and that the country now realizes the importance of each vote, and that we can now join forces to work for election and campaign finance reform. America is indeed a great democracy, and our ability to set aside our differences and come together to work towards a solution should now be how we prove that to the world."
We should all then get on with our lives until December, when the Electoral College meets. At which time, they should say the following:
"This has been a contentious and historic election, and it has placed the nature of our electoral process into the front of America's thoughts. We have cast our votes, as determined by the laws of each of our individual states, and in doing so, we have exercised our Constitutional right to select the President of the United States. Ladies and Gentlemen, the next President of the United States: Albert Gore.
Several factors have influenced this decision: First, it is our Constitutional charge and right to select the President. Those of us who were legally bound by our respective states to vote one way, did so. Those of us who were free to vote our conscious did so as well, and the American people, regardless of their State elected Al Gore in the popular vote. Now, this might seem to circumvent "State's rights" but nothing could be further from the case. We are selecting the leader of the entire United States, and for this purpose, there are no individual States, there is only the United States of America and as one, collective body, the majority of Americans selected Al Gore, and in our selection of him for the Presidency, we are simply echoing the wishes of the majority of the citizens of the United States."
And that's all the Electoral College should say. And then, Al Gore and the Democrats should graciously accept the role. And George Bush should graciously concede.
And I live in a fantasy land... sigh
Now, before you accuse me of some hidden agenda, keep in mind, not only am I a Libertarian, I cast my vote Libertarian as well. I don't think either Al Gore or George Bush are of Presidential caliber, which is why they are both behaving so horribly in this current situation. But I also think that the people have spoken, and if a majority of them selected Al Gore in the popular vote, then that's that. For Bush to win on a technicality is no more noble than Al Gore to win in a Court of Law.
There is no clear winner in this election; there is only a loser: the American People. Both candidates have shown that the Presidency of the United States is a role they don't possess the dignity and intelligence to fill. They and their parties have both behaved as children, not as leaders, and in this time of crisis, neither has risen to the role of statesmen. It makes me shudder at the thought of either of them dealing with an international crisis. What name calling, derision, and underhanded legal tactics will we be subjected to then?
The only clear course of action, at this point, is for we, the people of the United States of America to reform our process. Now is the time for us to join together, reform our elections, design better ballots, update an antiquated electoral system, even if it means amending the United States Constitution.
It is clear from this tragedy that we need some electoral reform. And the best thing we can do for ourselves and our country is to pass campaign finance reform, take the big money out of politics and open the doors to dissenting points of view in our campaigns and our debates.
Right now, we are standing on a very steep, rocky, and dangerous precipice. The only thing we can do to save ourselves is to join together, and take a cautious step back from the edge.
Posted by Dave! Permalink