The White House wrote a response to a New York Times article that accuses Bush and his governance for the mortgage meltdown. Now, Bush is NOT responsible for the mortgage and credit problem per se. He didn't make the bad loans. But the NYT article is correct in asserting that the Bush philosophy is part of the reason for the current debacle. He IS responsible for agreeing to remove much of the oversight that was meant to prevent gross abuses like this (along with the Republican controlled Congress from 2000-2006). He IS responsible for ignoring all the warning signs early on and sitting on his thumbs. He IS responsible for increasing national debt loads to the point where even U.S. debt spending will not have its usual anti-recession influence. But no one can or should blame him for actually making the bad loans. He helped make the situation easier to fall into. He didn't actually dig the entire hole.
The best part of the White House response was, and I quote, "The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view." Now, if you can't figure out why this is just the most horrific statement ever released by the current administration, then I can't help you. But I will make it easier- Iraq. The administration had plans in place to invade Iraq before the 9/11 incident. They've never made any bones about it. They ignored the evidence pointing to no WMDs. They ignored the people on the ground who best knew the situation. They ignored the domestic voices that questioned the policy and the data it was based on. They ignored the people that stood up and declared this to be a bad war on policy and humanitarian grounds. So the White House can just kiss the fattest part of my ass and I'm glad they will go down in history as one of the worst examples of American 'leadership'.
They've spent the last 8 years ignoring evidence and reaching conclusions they wanted. They've ignored privacy issues, energy issues, climate issues. They've ignored genocide. They've ignored the 70+ percent of Americans that have stood up and declared our national direction and foreign policy is wrong. So I don't want to hear a peep out of them declaring someone else is doing the same thing. Until you get your own house in order, you have no right, no basis, and no ethical ground to make these kind of accusations against someone else. Absolutely disgusting.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wow...just wow
I want to get away from politics, but it keeps dragging me back. I saw this headline and almost had to change my underwear (not in a good way): Confiscating toy guns part of US mission in Iraq.
Let's make this quick or I might suffer death by idiocy.
1) We'll take away toy guns from children in other countries but raise ours to believe guns are the answer to problems - witness laxer rules about guns in national parks, war as a solution to political problems, and unflinching adherence to poor readings of the 2nd amendment, protections for gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and allow concealed weapons (possibly on college campuses soon).
2) We fought an entire revolutionary war because of rules handed down by external authorities abridging personal freedoms- now we are telling Iraqis what their kids can and can't play with. Next comes a sugar tax.
3) We are, ostensibly, aiming to make Iraq a less violent place by reaching out to the kids - at home sell all manner of guns aimed at children: cap guns, air rifles, compressed air guns, BB guns, and paintball guns.
One of the more violent nations (and the nation with the highest per capita rate of privately owned gun deaths) telling another nation not to let their kids play with guns is the epitome of hypocrisy. When people ask why the rest of the world doesn't like us, remember stuff like this. Also remember that the U.S. was one of only two countries that refused to sign the ban on cluster bombs and munitions this past month. Hooray for violence!
Let's make this quick or I might suffer death by idiocy.
1) We'll take away toy guns from children in other countries but raise ours to believe guns are the answer to problems - witness laxer rules about guns in national parks, war as a solution to political problems, and unflinching adherence to poor readings of the 2nd amendment, protections for gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and allow concealed weapons (possibly on college campuses soon).
2) We fought an entire revolutionary war because of rules handed down by external authorities abridging personal freedoms- now we are telling Iraqis what their kids can and can't play with. Next comes a sugar tax.
3) We are, ostensibly, aiming to make Iraq a less violent place by reaching out to the kids - at home sell all manner of guns aimed at children: cap guns, air rifles, compressed air guns, BB guns, and paintball guns.
One of the more violent nations (and the nation with the highest per capita rate of privately owned gun deaths) telling another nation not to let their kids play with guns is the epitome of hypocrisy. When people ask why the rest of the world doesn't like us, remember stuff like this. Also remember that the U.S. was one of only two countries that refused to sign the ban on cluster bombs and munitions this past month. Hooray for violence!
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Panned for common sense
As a follow-up to my last post, during a radio address, Barack announced a major plan to use public works projects as a stimulus boost to get the economy rolling again. He never once used the word spend. Instead, he referred to the works and money as "investments". He was panned by the media for not saying "spend". To be fair, the truth is that money will be spent. Therefore, it is correct to call this spending. BUT, and this is a big but, these are exactly the kinds of spending projects that need to occur. Why?
1) Governments should spend money and lower taxes DURING RECESSIONS while NOT SPENDING and raising taxes during boom times. It's basic economic theory and good practice. Government spending helps jolt the economy during times when consumers are not consuming and pays for those projects via higher taxes when salaries, income, and spending are up.
2) The things bought with that money will provide services for the U.S. for the next 50 years. We are still using the original interstate system (albeit with normal maintenance and repairs) and much of the original electric grid. Now is the time to spend on getting those systems up to date while also supplying a broadband system (since we are in the information age and economy), better educational facilities, and improve alternative energy resources.
3) Invest is the correct word. Spending now in order to reap the economic benefits when the world economy picks up again is, by definition, investing. Investing in improved infrastructure is a good start. We also must invest in our human capital and resources- education and health care being the two biggest areas ripe for improvement.
4) At the end, when the spending is done, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT. We will have roads, bridges, hospitals, solar energy stations, fiber-optic connections, and schools. These are things that make life better for everyone now AND in the future. For comparison- nearly $1 trillion will ultimately (estimated as of today) be given to the financial sector. What will this bailout give? Tangibly...very little. The money being pumped in HAS NOT improved capital flows to the people that need it. If it had, Ford and GM would not be banging their tin cups on the Capitol steps. Maybe, eventually, at some unspecified time, the money will flow. But remember...hundreds of billions of that WILL NEVER BE SEEN BY US because it was used to pay off the people that lost the money. We subsidized their losses so they would have lower losses. We didn't subsidize our losses. That was left up to banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies.
5) Public works projects provide employment. Giving money to Wall Street does not. At least, not in a direct proportion. These projects keep companies in business and keep people employed.
6) The subsidies already given to energy companies, telecoms, tobacco growers, farmers, and big business (typically in the form of tax breaks, but often via direct cash injections) are worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS over the life of the subsidies. Therefore, the government is already handing out this kind of money. Why not let some of that flow to the people at the bottom that are the people that will be employed on these projects? You can't give money to certain people and then tell others that giving them money would be socialism.
So yes, it's spending. Ultimately, it's good spending. Compared to 8 years of bad spending, this seems downright reasonable.
1) Governments should spend money and lower taxes DURING RECESSIONS while NOT SPENDING and raising taxes during boom times. It's basic economic theory and good practice. Government spending helps jolt the economy during times when consumers are not consuming and pays for those projects via higher taxes when salaries, income, and spending are up.
2) The things bought with that money will provide services for the U.S. for the next 50 years. We are still using the original interstate system (albeit with normal maintenance and repairs) and much of the original electric grid. Now is the time to spend on getting those systems up to date while also supplying a broadband system (since we are in the information age and economy), better educational facilities, and improve alternative energy resources.
3) Invest is the correct word. Spending now in order to reap the economic benefits when the world economy picks up again is, by definition, investing. Investing in improved infrastructure is a good start. We also must invest in our human capital and resources- education and health care being the two biggest areas ripe for improvement.
4) At the end, when the spending is done, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT. We will have roads, bridges, hospitals, solar energy stations, fiber-optic connections, and schools. These are things that make life better for everyone now AND in the future. For comparison- nearly $1 trillion will ultimately (estimated as of today) be given to the financial sector. What will this bailout give? Tangibly...very little. The money being pumped in HAS NOT improved capital flows to the people that need it. If it had, Ford and GM would not be banging their tin cups on the Capitol steps. Maybe, eventually, at some unspecified time, the money will flow. But remember...hundreds of billions of that WILL NEVER BE SEEN BY US because it was used to pay off the people that lost the money. We subsidized their losses so they would have lower losses. We didn't subsidize our losses. That was left up to banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies.
5) Public works projects provide employment. Giving money to Wall Street does not. At least, not in a direct proportion. These projects keep companies in business and keep people employed.
6) The subsidies already given to energy companies, telecoms, tobacco growers, farmers, and big business (typically in the form of tax breaks, but often via direct cash injections) are worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS over the life of the subsidies. Therefore, the government is already handing out this kind of money. Why not let some of that flow to the people at the bottom that are the people that will be employed on these projects? You can't give money to certain people and then tell others that giving them money would be socialism.
So yes, it's spending. Ultimately, it's good spending. Compared to 8 years of bad spending, this seems downright reasonable.
Monday, November 24, 2008
A mark of humanity - planning for the future
Just one quick news item: Bush, Mr. America, Mr. If-you're-not-with-us-you're-pro-terrorism, handed down a pardon today to Leslie Owen Collier for VIOLATING THE BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT. To be fair, I'm sure it was warranted, but how do you stand for all that is symbolically American while allowing people to use pesticides banned for their effect on bald eagles? Seems stupid to me. He's done worse. I just thought this was funny.
I hate Kornheiser from MNF. He got slapped down by Jaworski near the end of the game for saying stupid shit like "what do people think of the decision to let Favre go now?". Jaws made a great point after listening to this dribble, one I'm sure most of America missed. Jaws said that the decision to let Favre go was made in the LONG TERM INTEREST of the packers.
This is one of the beauties of being human- the ability to plan for the future. Humans have the unique ability to plan long term projects, set goals that will not be completed for months, and invest in ideas that may not pay off for a decade. But, historically speaking, particularly under capitalist doctrine, it's all about the short term. It's the 'what have you done for me lately' syndrome. Not turning a profit this quarter? Fire the exec and bring in someone else. Fire the lowest ranks and dump more work on fewer people. (Note: this is called "enhancing productivity"). Rather than improving the business or attracting new customers that will provide long-term profit and stability, we focus on the next financial report. We don't care about the health of the company so long as they pay their dividends on time.
Now, to be fair, there have been extraordinary periods (think FDR public works or Eisenhower's interstate freeway system) when we HAVE invested in things for the future at the expense of some current consumption. The building of the hydroelectric dams provided the energy needed to power the industrialism of the twentieth century (and was responsible for us winning WWII). The freeway system allowed awesome transportation of goods and services. The national power grid (when it was first put together) was over-built in order for later expansion. All of these things helped make America the great place that it is.
But now we're not doing that. We're not investing in the future. We're haggling over a few billion dollars that could be used to build state-of-the-art water treatment facilities, schools, universities, parks, museums, and roadways. We're spending trillions (TRILLIONS!!!) on wars, missiles, and nukes. We've reset our priorities and they seem to be narrowly focused and have no provisions for what will happen, planned or unplanned, in the next two, three, five, or ten years.
This mentality can be shown no clearer than by GM, Ford, and Chrysler showing up in D.C. begging for money. For 20 years they've been outsold and out managed. They've continued building trucks and SUVs when the market was CLEARLY shifting to smaller cars, higher quality cars, and better warranties. Rather than making the necessary business changes they chose to keep following the path of short term profits (a la high-priced SUVs) at the expense of long-term liquidity, long term market position, and long term survival. Now they expect the taxpayer to cover their complete ineptitude and allow them a few more years of life to play catch-up using our dollars instead of their own.
I hear people cry that now is not the time to invest in new mass transportation infrastructure, not the time to pay down the national debt, not the time to invest in human capital (education, job training, etc). When, exactly, IS the right time? Obviously the last 20 years weren't right since we are still lacking those things. But the situation is worse because we have no plans and the system that WAS put in place (with great foresight I might add) is aging and dying or becoming irrelevant in our changing social and economic landscape. The few things we've managed to invest in are great, but are still totally inadequate for what's coming even 10 years down the line. Adding three buses a year does almost nothing to alleviate our transportation problem or our addiction to oil. Also, has the price of this stuff EVER gone down? Are we waiting for liquidation sales for this stuff or what?
Bottom line: we are NOT preparing our children for the high-tech jobs of the information age, we are NOT prepared for the strain of additional people on our power grids or transportation networks, and we are NOT prepared for the changes that are needed in our energy usage and fossil fuel dependency. We are not using our ability to plan for the future to actually do that. This lack of action and investment will only hurt us in both the short term and the long term. Thank you, Jaws, for making the point. It's just as important in football as it is in the real world. And we are failing miserably.
I hate Kornheiser from MNF. He got slapped down by Jaworski near the end of the game for saying stupid shit like "what do people think of the decision to let Favre go now?". Jaws made a great point after listening to this dribble, one I'm sure most of America missed. Jaws said that the decision to let Favre go was made in the LONG TERM INTEREST of the packers.
This is one of the beauties of being human- the ability to plan for the future. Humans have the unique ability to plan long term projects, set goals that will not be completed for months, and invest in ideas that may not pay off for a decade. But, historically speaking, particularly under capitalist doctrine, it's all about the short term. It's the 'what have you done for me lately' syndrome. Not turning a profit this quarter? Fire the exec and bring in someone else. Fire the lowest ranks and dump more work on fewer people. (Note: this is called "enhancing productivity"). Rather than improving the business or attracting new customers that will provide long-term profit and stability, we focus on the next financial report. We don't care about the health of the company so long as they pay their dividends on time.
Now, to be fair, there have been extraordinary periods (think FDR public works or Eisenhower's interstate freeway system) when we HAVE invested in things for the future at the expense of some current consumption. The building of the hydroelectric dams provided the energy needed to power the industrialism of the twentieth century (and was responsible for us winning WWII). The freeway system allowed awesome transportation of goods and services. The national power grid (when it was first put together) was over-built in order for later expansion. All of these things helped make America the great place that it is.
But now we're not doing that. We're not investing in the future. We're haggling over a few billion dollars that could be used to build state-of-the-art water treatment facilities, schools, universities, parks, museums, and roadways. We're spending trillions (TRILLIONS!!!) on wars, missiles, and nukes. We've reset our priorities and they seem to be narrowly focused and have no provisions for what will happen, planned or unplanned, in the next two, three, five, or ten years.
This mentality can be shown no clearer than by GM, Ford, and Chrysler showing up in D.C. begging for money. For 20 years they've been outsold and out managed. They've continued building trucks and SUVs when the market was CLEARLY shifting to smaller cars, higher quality cars, and better warranties. Rather than making the necessary business changes they chose to keep following the path of short term profits (a la high-priced SUVs) at the expense of long-term liquidity, long term market position, and long term survival. Now they expect the taxpayer to cover their complete ineptitude and allow them a few more years of life to play catch-up using our dollars instead of their own.
I hear people cry that now is not the time to invest in new mass transportation infrastructure, not the time to pay down the national debt, not the time to invest in human capital (education, job training, etc). When, exactly, IS the right time? Obviously the last 20 years weren't right since we are still lacking those things. But the situation is worse because we have no plans and the system that WAS put in place (with great foresight I might add) is aging and dying or becoming irrelevant in our changing social and economic landscape. The few things we've managed to invest in are great, but are still totally inadequate for what's coming even 10 years down the line. Adding three buses a year does almost nothing to alleviate our transportation problem or our addiction to oil. Also, has the price of this stuff EVER gone down? Are we waiting for liquidation sales for this stuff or what?
Bottom line: we are NOT preparing our children for the high-tech jobs of the information age, we are NOT prepared for the strain of additional people on our power grids or transportation networks, and we are NOT prepared for the changes that are needed in our energy usage and fossil fuel dependency. We are not using our ability to plan for the future to actually do that. This lack of action and investment will only hurt us in both the short term and the long term. Thank you, Jaws, for making the point. It's just as important in football as it is in the real world. And we are failing miserably.
Friday, November 7, 2008
How stupid can you possibly be?
I couldn't pass this up. The headline: Fears of Democrat crackdown lead to gun sales boom. The gist of gun owners and sellers: Obama will make it difficult or impossible to buy assault weapons and/or will take away your right to own guns.
Fact: Obama has supported curbs on gun purchases, including for automatic weapons and assault rifles. This in no way takes away your right to own a gun.
Fact: Obama would like to implement increased responsibility for gun owners and sellers and has voted to allow gun manufacturers to remain open to lawsuits. (Which is only fair- cigarette companies are responsible for deaths caused by their products, car makers are responsible for their safety systems and crash tests, food companies are responsible for illnesses cause by their food, so why should gun manufacturers get some kind of special free pass?)
Where, exactly, did Obama ever say, act, or think to take away people's "2nd amendment rights"? I put that in quotes because, like much of the Constitution, it's debatable how it has been applied in practice. If you think Obama is going to roll into the White House and start smacking down gun ownership laws, I think you're too stupid to own a gun. If you think Obama is going to "take away your rights" you're also stupid. Let me explain.
Over the past 6 years, Americans have lost or had reduced more rights than you can shake a stick at. Just to name a few- you can now be spied on via wiretaps on your phones with no probable cause, your right of habeus corpus can be suspended because the government says so in any case they claim is "terror related", the right to a free press has been infringed by the subpoena of confidential sources and subsequent jailing of reporters for not divulging them, your rights to privacy with companies you do business with have been trampled because of data retention policies that increase data storage and force businesses to turn over that data to the government with no questions asked and no recourse to discuss the matter (via National Security Letters- look it up), your rights of privacy and travel have been severely restricted via random checkpoints set up in border zones that can check documentation and personal items such as laptops without reasonable cause (not just border crossing points- actual checkpoints within the country that are slowly moving further inland and require you to show citizenship status), and your right to information about government actions and policies has been trampled via denials of reasonable Freedom of Information requests.
Someone explain to me why fools are screaming about gun rights that HAVE NOT been infringed upon in any way yet, but are absolutely silent about these other horrific abuses and proscriptions on basic rights. If you think Obama will take away your rights but Bush somehow preserved them, you're living in fantasy land. All we've done over the past 6 years is quietly lose rights or have those rights severely reduced. There are a few groups fighting (the EFF, the ACLU, etc), but so few people paid any attention and willingly went along with these horrific policies in the name of "security". Just so we're clear- trading your rights for ANYTHING only delivers that much more control to the people that provide what you traded for. Personally, I'll live in a world with an incomprehensibly small chance of being the victim of a terror attack and keep my rights to privacy and a free press. People died to give us those rights in the first place. Now we're tossing them aside to feel safe and turning them over to a group of people that, while duly elected, do not necessarily have the best interests of the general populace at heart.
So gun people, shut the hell up and stop saying stupid shit. No one is taking your precious guns away. Obama is not going to somehow repeal the second amendment. If you want rights, march your asses to D.C. and demand back the rights that have already been taken, not the ones you imagine might be in the future. Let's get back to where we started and then worry about what may or may not happen.
Fact: Obama has supported curbs on gun purchases, including for automatic weapons and assault rifles. This in no way takes away your right to own a gun.
Fact: Obama would like to implement increased responsibility for gun owners and sellers and has voted to allow gun manufacturers to remain open to lawsuits. (Which is only fair- cigarette companies are responsible for deaths caused by their products, car makers are responsible for their safety systems and crash tests, food companies are responsible for illnesses cause by their food, so why should gun manufacturers get some kind of special free pass?)
Where, exactly, did Obama ever say, act, or think to take away people's "2nd amendment rights"? I put that in quotes because, like much of the Constitution, it's debatable how it has been applied in practice. If you think Obama is going to roll into the White House and start smacking down gun ownership laws, I think you're too stupid to own a gun. If you think Obama is going to "take away your rights" you're also stupid. Let me explain.
Over the past 6 years, Americans have lost or had reduced more rights than you can shake a stick at. Just to name a few- you can now be spied on via wiretaps on your phones with no probable cause, your right of habeus corpus can be suspended because the government says so in any case they claim is "terror related", the right to a free press has been infringed by the subpoena of confidential sources and subsequent jailing of reporters for not divulging them, your rights to privacy with companies you do business with have been trampled because of data retention policies that increase data storage and force businesses to turn over that data to the government with no questions asked and no recourse to discuss the matter (via National Security Letters- look it up), your rights of privacy and travel have been severely restricted via random checkpoints set up in border zones that can check documentation and personal items such as laptops without reasonable cause (not just border crossing points- actual checkpoints within the country that are slowly moving further inland and require you to show citizenship status), and your right to information about government actions and policies has been trampled via denials of reasonable Freedom of Information requests.
Someone explain to me why fools are screaming about gun rights that HAVE NOT been infringed upon in any way yet, but are absolutely silent about these other horrific abuses and proscriptions on basic rights. If you think Obama will take away your rights but Bush somehow preserved them, you're living in fantasy land. All we've done over the past 6 years is quietly lose rights or have those rights severely reduced. There are a few groups fighting (the EFF, the ACLU, etc), but so few people paid any attention and willingly went along with these horrific policies in the name of "security". Just so we're clear- trading your rights for ANYTHING only delivers that much more control to the people that provide what you traded for. Personally, I'll live in a world with an incomprehensibly small chance of being the victim of a terror attack and keep my rights to privacy and a free press. People died to give us those rights in the first place. Now we're tossing them aside to feel safe and turning them over to a group of people that, while duly elected, do not necessarily have the best interests of the general populace at heart.
So gun people, shut the hell up and stop saying stupid shit. No one is taking your precious guns away. Obama is not going to somehow repeal the second amendment. If you want rights, march your asses to D.C. and demand back the rights that have already been taken, not the ones you imagine might be in the future. Let's get back to where we started and then worry about what may or may not happen.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A good point
My good friend Geoff made a great point. Let me set the scene.
Today Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law. You can look it up. And in case you were wondering, IP is short for intellectual property (anything from works of art to the design of computer chips or the formula for boner drugs). Suffice it to say the bill gives sweeping additional powers to U.S. IP holders, provides disproportionate punishments for IP infringement (even unintentional), creates a tax-payer funded "piracy czar" that will 'implement strategic plans to reduce IP infringement' (whatever that means), and allows IP holders to continue decimating consumers by bypassing rights of resell, 'leasing' software or music even though you bought the medium, preventing you from making backups of purchased products, and continuing to use shotgun lawsuits and non-disclosure agreements as enforcement mechanisms.
I quite disparagingly mentioned that Bush signed this act into law and Geoff rightly smacked my face and pointed out that it takes two to tango. Congress passed the legislation in the first place (unanimously in the Senate I might add), so they are equally to blame. So I will amend my statement and say that it was Bush AND all the fools in the House and Senate that have once again busted the balls of consumers everywhere.
Folks, Congress is not, nor should it be, a rubber stamp for the wishes of the executive. And the executive should never be a rubber stamp for Congress. If one of them won't stand up to bad legislation or ideas, the other should. If they don't, then both branches have failed the public. Here we see an EPIC FAIL. But here they are, for the last 8 years, loving cupping each others balls and just passing bill after bill that does this kind of stuff. Need I remind anyone of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind? Obviously, these were not consumer oriented, but one legalized privacy invasion, domestic spying, and suspension of habeas corpus while the other punished struggling schools and students by taking away their funding. Bush has, to the best of my knowledge and research abilities, only vetoed TWO bills (only one spending bill) in his years in office. Congress has tabled lots of little stuff, but has continuously passed legislation deemed important by Bush (except his Swiss cheese energy bill, which they rightly smacked down hard and publicly). So here we have a big circle-jerk of people that are supposed to be checking and balancing each other. Now, because they like the stroking better than fighting the deep pockets and election-oiling money of the IP lobby, it's up to the over-burdened courts to be the last line of defense. This is a TWO BRANCH EPIC FAIL.
For the record, I'm all for IP protection, but within reason. No one should have 99 year monopolies on things like business organization ideas or video game joysticks (both of which exist, by the way). The IP lobby has successfully given themselves vast monopoly powers in a country that pretends to abhor the principle of monopoly. IP has become a way to stifle competition and bar entrance to lucrative markets. People that develop IP (including artists, software engineers, hardware designers, etc) should be and, I think, are justified in making a profit on their inventions and ideas. But creating a situation in which the consumers of those creations are punished for selling used items, are required to buy all new media every time a new technology wanders into the world, and are subject to monopoly prices because of IP laws is inexcusable. We should make all the little Congressmen and Congresswomen go back to the table and demand legislation that 1) protects the rights of consumers to reasonably use and protect their purchases (with backups and resell rights as a minimum), 2) makes the IP industry fund its own police work and policies (just like independent, non-corporate IP holders are forced to), and 3) creates a consistent system of copyright and patents for IP that gives reasonable time to people to make use and profit from their IP before that knowledge becomes public and available for others to use (rather than offering lifetime monopolies). The consumers got jacked, the IP lobby got a major windfall, and two of three branches of government set consumer rights back almost 50 years (back to the day of "copiers should be illegal because no one will buy books if they can copy them).
Congress and Bushy should stop wearing their ass as a hat.
Today Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law. You can look it up. And in case you were wondering, IP is short for intellectual property (anything from works of art to the design of computer chips or the formula for boner drugs). Suffice it to say the bill gives sweeping additional powers to U.S. IP holders, provides disproportionate punishments for IP infringement (even unintentional), creates a tax-payer funded "piracy czar" that will 'implement strategic plans to reduce IP infringement' (whatever that means), and allows IP holders to continue decimating consumers by bypassing rights of resell, 'leasing' software or music even though you bought the medium, preventing you from making backups of purchased products, and continuing to use shotgun lawsuits and non-disclosure agreements as enforcement mechanisms.
I quite disparagingly mentioned that Bush signed this act into law and Geoff rightly smacked my face and pointed out that it takes two to tango. Congress passed the legislation in the first place (unanimously in the Senate I might add), so they are equally to blame. So I will amend my statement and say that it was Bush AND all the fools in the House and Senate that have once again busted the balls of consumers everywhere.
Folks, Congress is not, nor should it be, a rubber stamp for the wishes of the executive. And the executive should never be a rubber stamp for Congress. If one of them won't stand up to bad legislation or ideas, the other should. If they don't, then both branches have failed the public. Here we see an EPIC FAIL. But here they are, for the last 8 years, loving cupping each others balls and just passing bill after bill that does this kind of stuff. Need I remind anyone of the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind? Obviously, these were not consumer oriented, but one legalized privacy invasion, domestic spying, and suspension of habeas corpus while the other punished struggling schools and students by taking away their funding. Bush has, to the best of my knowledge and research abilities, only vetoed TWO bills (only one spending bill) in his years in office. Congress has tabled lots of little stuff, but has continuously passed legislation deemed important by Bush (except his Swiss cheese energy bill, which they rightly smacked down hard and publicly). So here we have a big circle-jerk of people that are supposed to be checking and balancing each other. Now, because they like the stroking better than fighting the deep pockets and election-oiling money of the IP lobby, it's up to the over-burdened courts to be the last line of defense. This is a TWO BRANCH EPIC FAIL.
For the record, I'm all for IP protection, but within reason. No one should have 99 year monopolies on things like business organization ideas or video game joysticks (both of which exist, by the way). The IP lobby has successfully given themselves vast monopoly powers in a country that pretends to abhor the principle of monopoly. IP has become a way to stifle competition and bar entrance to lucrative markets. People that develop IP (including artists, software engineers, hardware designers, etc) should be and, I think, are justified in making a profit on their inventions and ideas. But creating a situation in which the consumers of those creations are punished for selling used items, are required to buy all new media every time a new technology wanders into the world, and are subject to monopoly prices because of IP laws is inexcusable. We should make all the little Congressmen and Congresswomen go back to the table and demand legislation that 1) protects the rights of consumers to reasonably use and protect their purchases (with backups and resell rights as a minimum), 2) makes the IP industry fund its own police work and policies (just like independent, non-corporate IP holders are forced to), and 3) creates a consistent system of copyright and patents for IP that gives reasonable time to people to make use and profit from their IP before that knowledge becomes public and available for others to use (rather than offering lifetime monopolies). The consumers got jacked, the IP lobby got a major windfall, and two of three branches of government set consumer rights back almost 50 years (back to the day of "copiers should be illegal because no one will buy books if they can copy them).
Congress and Bushy should stop wearing their ass as a hat.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
For those of you that missed it
I encourage everyone to read the previous post if you haven't, but this is too much to pass up.
A lot of you watched the debates. The news media will most likely cover the inconsequential or overly simplistic side of things: how the candidates looked, how they carried themselves, how the "debate" (I use that term very very loosely) was more vitriolic than the previous ones, abortion, supreme court appointments, and the like.
What you won't hear is this: Obama said what may be the smartest thing any politician has ever said in public. I paraphrase: "Neither side wants abortions. We need to address the things that increase abortion rates- education, access to health care, economic equality, and sex education." I thought McCain had the "Straight Talk Express" but Barack just straight-talked McCain back into the Cold War where he came from.
To be fair, the candidates were supposed to be addressing the issue of how they would choose supreme court justices and whether Roe v. Wade would influence that decision. But you can't mention Roe v. Wade without someone haring off into esoteric arguments about "morality" and "a woman's right to choose". (Also- did anyone else notice that both candidates said they wouldn't use litmus tests and then proceeded to outline what could easily be construed as litmus tests?)
McCain spent his time on the abortion issue arguing about morality, whether Roe v. Wade was judged correctly, and how Obama voted against fetuses (even though Obama just spent the previous minute explaining the situation). But he NEVER NEVER NEVER came to central issue: neither side wants abortions.
The Republican solution (McCain's position and the party position) is to legislate them into non-existence (and by non-existence I mean into back alleys and foreign countries). The Democratic solution (officially implemented into the platform this year and pasted on Obama's website) is to reduce abortions by increasing and improving those things that directly lead to lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy- sex education (NOT JUST ABSTINENCE!!!!), higher levels of education (pregnancy rates and abortions are proportional to educational attainment), access to quality health care (for mother and baby), better adoption services, and better employment opportunities (higher incomes are proportional to lower abortion rates).
Obama was also right when he said these are areas that both sides can agree on. Whether you define life at conception or birth or somewhere in-between, addressing these issues will lower the overall rate and make everyone happier. You'll NEVER have zero abortions. The goal is to reduce the total number in a meaningful, lasting way. Which do you think will be more affective IN THE LONG RUN (not just by closing down legal facilities in the short term)?
Obama hit it square on the head. He faced the problem head on. He proposed a solution that addresses the ROOT causes of abortion, not just one that slaps a patch on the RESULTS. Everyone can agree that fewer abortions are a win for everyone. Legislation only drives it underground. Addressing the root causes will decrease the rate AND improve the education of the populace. That's a win-win. Now we just need to implement it. We've tried abstinence. We've tried it for the last 50 years. It's time to go beyond that and start putting the rest of the structure in place.
That's all I have to say about the debate. It was disgusting with the personal attacks, the lies and truth bending by both sides, the palpable anger, and, worst of all, the claim by McCain that Obama's policies are in any way associated with a "race war" and that schools are somehow equitable. I've been in school for twenty years. Racial equality is FAR from true in public schools or universities. Racism is alive and well. We have made huge strides, but we have much more distance to go. A potential leader of this country ignoring that and claiming that education is equitable is inexcusable.
Finally, someone explain this to me: The Republican platform mandates no abortions, even in cases of incest, rape, or other nefarious deeds. The platform also says no assisted suicide. However, this is the platform and party that advocates the death penalty, is typically hawkish and pro-war (which results in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS), and arbitrarily demands more rights to the infant's life than the mother. The platform says abortions should be illegal EVEN IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. Someone, in a logical manner, needs to explain these vast discrepancies in "sacredness of life" and "ethic of life". Why do we protect live babies so they can be dead soldiers? Why do we kill prisoners but not allow those in chronic pain to choose to end that pain? Where is the consistency? Why is an infant's life more valuable than a mother's? Obviously, there is no true answer to these questions and they all depend on how you want to define life and its sacredness. But if you're going to be the party with an "ethic of life" you HAVE to be consistent. You can't kill convicts out of revenge or justice or anger and then turn around and say old people have to live even if every moment is in agony. Both are issues of life and death. To be the party of life, then EVERY life must count. And that means working to reduce poverty. The surest indicator of life expectancy isn't genes or lifestyle or vices- it's income. So the party of life also needs to be the party of poverty reduction. For a very well thought out, informative, well documented exploration of this idea, read Jim Wallis's book God's Politics.
Cheerio!
A lot of you watched the debates. The news media will most likely cover the inconsequential or overly simplistic side of things: how the candidates looked, how they carried themselves, how the "debate" (I use that term very very loosely) was more vitriolic than the previous ones, abortion, supreme court appointments, and the like.
What you won't hear is this: Obama said what may be the smartest thing any politician has ever said in public. I paraphrase: "Neither side wants abortions. We need to address the things that increase abortion rates- education, access to health care, economic equality, and sex education." I thought McCain had the "Straight Talk Express" but Barack just straight-talked McCain back into the Cold War where he came from.
To be fair, the candidates were supposed to be addressing the issue of how they would choose supreme court justices and whether Roe v. Wade would influence that decision. But you can't mention Roe v. Wade without someone haring off into esoteric arguments about "morality" and "a woman's right to choose". (Also- did anyone else notice that both candidates said they wouldn't use litmus tests and then proceeded to outline what could easily be construed as litmus tests?)
McCain spent his time on the abortion issue arguing about morality, whether Roe v. Wade was judged correctly, and how Obama voted against fetuses (even though Obama just spent the previous minute explaining the situation). But he NEVER NEVER NEVER came to central issue: neither side wants abortions.
The Republican solution (McCain's position and the party position) is to legislate them into non-existence (and by non-existence I mean into back alleys and foreign countries). The Democratic solution (officially implemented into the platform this year and pasted on Obama's website) is to reduce abortions by increasing and improving those things that directly lead to lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy- sex education (NOT JUST ABSTINENCE!!!!), higher levels of education (pregnancy rates and abortions are proportional to educational attainment), access to quality health care (for mother and baby), better adoption services, and better employment opportunities (higher incomes are proportional to lower abortion rates).
Obama was also right when he said these are areas that both sides can agree on. Whether you define life at conception or birth or somewhere in-between, addressing these issues will lower the overall rate and make everyone happier. You'll NEVER have zero abortions. The goal is to reduce the total number in a meaningful, lasting way. Which do you think will be more affective IN THE LONG RUN (not just by closing down legal facilities in the short term)?
Obama hit it square on the head. He faced the problem head on. He proposed a solution that addresses the ROOT causes of abortion, not just one that slaps a patch on the RESULTS. Everyone can agree that fewer abortions are a win for everyone. Legislation only drives it underground. Addressing the root causes will decrease the rate AND improve the education of the populace. That's a win-win. Now we just need to implement it. We've tried abstinence. We've tried it for the last 50 years. It's time to go beyond that and start putting the rest of the structure in place.
That's all I have to say about the debate. It was disgusting with the personal attacks, the lies and truth bending by both sides, the palpable anger, and, worst of all, the claim by McCain that Obama's policies are in any way associated with a "race war" and that schools are somehow equitable. I've been in school for twenty years. Racial equality is FAR from true in public schools or universities. Racism is alive and well. We have made huge strides, but we have much more distance to go. A potential leader of this country ignoring that and claiming that education is equitable is inexcusable.
Finally, someone explain this to me: The Republican platform mandates no abortions, even in cases of incest, rape, or other nefarious deeds. The platform also says no assisted suicide. However, this is the platform and party that advocates the death penalty, is typically hawkish and pro-war (which results in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS), and arbitrarily demands more rights to the infant's life than the mother. The platform says abortions should be illegal EVEN IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. Someone, in a logical manner, needs to explain these vast discrepancies in "sacredness of life" and "ethic of life". Why do we protect live babies so they can be dead soldiers? Why do we kill prisoners but not allow those in chronic pain to choose to end that pain? Where is the consistency? Why is an infant's life more valuable than a mother's? Obviously, there is no true answer to these questions and they all depend on how you want to define life and its sacredness. But if you're going to be the party with an "ethic of life" you HAVE to be consistent. You can't kill convicts out of revenge or justice or anger and then turn around and say old people have to live even if every moment is in agony. Both are issues of life and death. To be the party of life, then EVERY life must count. And that means working to reduce poverty. The surest indicator of life expectancy isn't genes or lifestyle or vices- it's income. So the party of life also needs to be the party of poverty reduction. For a very well thought out, informative, well documented exploration of this idea, read Jim Wallis's book God's Politics.
Cheerio!
Monday, October 13, 2008
Things you find in the news for $2000, Alex.
Politics on the brain. It's all anyone can seem to focus on. It'll all be forgotten six minutes after the votes are in, but it's impossible to escape now- the name calling, belligerent attitudes, the lies and half-truths, the purposeful misunderstanding and the stupidity. So here's a little common sense from Adam to put some of the crap in context.
Rant #1) I have watched each debate and have surprisingly little to say about them. Both candidates are just using the questions as springboards for prepared talking points, which is shameful. The format of the debates, which disallows any meaningful discussion, is ridiculous. Senator Obama may be "winning" them by public estimations, but he's not hammering Senator McCain into the ground—he's not explaining why he would be the best next president, or why McCain would be the worst. And McCain isn't saying much beyond "my opponent just doesn't get it" while evading answers and distancing himself from the president he voted with 90% of the time.
But one thing did leap out at me, at both Presidential debates, on the issue of Pakistani borders. It's a big question right now because Al Qaeda is crafty and knows that most of the time (Iraq not being a notable exception) we respect the borders of international nations which have not attacked us first. Barack said in both debates that if he knew proof-positive where Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to take Bin Laden out, that he would authorize a strike to go across and get Bin Laden.
Senator McCain responded that Senator Obama is foolish because the President should "speak softly and carry a big stick" and not "telegraph his punches". Yet John never said he wouldn't do the exact same thing. So, I am left with two possibilities: either McCain would respect Pakistani sovereignty and not fire the shot if Bin Laden was moonwalking just across that line (doubtful), or he and Obama believe the exact same thing—the only difference is that McCain refuses to say it out loud.
What's that shit painted on the side of his bus again?? "Straight Talk Express"?
Now, I don't know what the answer is. Personally, it makes me nervous to just Tweety Bird it and use "I tawt I taw a terrorist" as justification for pretty much anything. But I do know is that if McCain is going to cling to the political equivalent of "I KEEP IT REAL" then he damn sure better, otherwise he risks alienating people who are actually hoping for straight talk.
Rant #2) This is why I cannot read commentaries by Glenn Beck; the man is a sensationalist asshole—the modern day equivalent of an op-ed Hearst— who makes a living coming up with the wildest arguments he can, no matter how illogical or foolish they may be. The commentary has been linked for your enjoyment, but I will sum it up to save you time:
Mr. Beck is upset about claims of racial undertones from liberal groups/individuals. He points to certain moments on the campaign trail—the quickly infamous "that one", of course, and the "Joe six-pack" images being thrown around by Governor Palin. He claims that the subtext people read into such comments—that they are racially charged attempts to "otherize" Senator Obama and make him seem distant and foreign—are ridiculous, unfounded, and irresponsible. Fine, that is a fair argument. Yet mere sentences later, Mr. Beck basically says 'the subtext of all of this is clear— if you vote against Obama, you are a racist.' Now how in the hell can you decry the use of subtext as irresponsible in one case, then draw imaginary parallels between "please don't call our candidate 'uppity'" (as did Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia) and "Vote for change, or join the KKK."?
Rant #3) Speaking of that particular organization, this Bill Ayers business is K-K-KILLING me.
Let me get this straight, and stop me if I hit a snag: Bill Ayers helped found the Weather Underground. Check.
Weather Underground did some bad shit, some of which Ayers was a part of. Check.
Ayers never faced charges due to prosecutorial misconduct, yet voluntarily turned himself in to authorities in 1980. Check.
30 years later, Bill Ayers is a university professor and former 'Chicago Citizen Of The Year' for his championing of Elementary Education and the writing of a massive grant to benefit under-funded schools. Check.
Barack Obama sat on a Board of Directors with Ayers and, at one point, lived a few streets away. Check.
Obama is "palling around with terrorists". Wait, what the fuck?
Not only is this connection retardedly tenuous and stupidly inflammatory, something else is bothering me. Let's get some other things straight:
John McCain has served nearly 30 years in the US Senate alongside Robert Byrd. Check.
Robert Byrd is an admitted former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Check.
The KKK is considered a domestic terror organization. Check.
So how in the crap is John McCain not "palling around" with a "terrorist who targeted his own country"? EPIC FAIL, McCain campaign— your accusations are saturated with liquid FAIL and country-fried hypocrisy. If Obama is unfit to serve as President because of this, then so is John McCain; let's all write in Ron Paul and get this country back on track.
Sadly, however, most people aren't concerned about this apparent hypocritical stance—I spent an hour and a half in the Foxnews Forums yesterday, trying to get an answer to my question, and in 16,000 replies to "Does Obama-Ayers Connection Matter?" not a single person even attempted to explain to me why dispersing grant money with a former anarchist is magically different from writing legislation with a former Klan member. Instead, I was told that I must be a "comunist" (sic) and love "the Curan" (sadly, sadly sic).
Rant #4) It pisses me off that age has become an issue in this campaign, for either side. Health, certainly. Computer literacy, absolutely. Age, who gives a shit? My grandmother is roughly the same age as John McCain and she has been slamming death's door with her walker for quite a while now. Chuck Norris is almost as old McCain, but he would roundhouse-kick his way through every cabinet meeting for 8 years and still never need to sleep. Age does not matter. Period. McCain is in good health, and has released (to his credit) over 1,000 pages of medical documents for the press to look over, which is way more than Obama has done. He's healthy—who cares if he is 40 or 80? 'Is he the best thing for America?' is the only question I care about.
Another thing I care about is not running shady campaigns. One thing you will never hear in this election cycle is the Obama campaign using McCain's middle name (Sydney) with a strange emphasis, yet members of McCain's campaign constantly refer to Senator Obama as "Barack Hussein". Come on—are you seriously trying to claim that you have no idea what you are doing? That you have no idea what the name 'Hussein' means to some Americans, and that you are not using an accident of birth to diminish Senator Obama's character, reputation, and qualifications by making that association? Give me a fucking break! Hey, Glenn Beck, where was that example in your ramblings? Even you know that is some bullshit.
I will also stab the next asshat who says Sarah Palin should not be President because she needs to be spending time with her kids. You would never hear someone say that Bill Clinton should not have run because he needed to spend time with Chelsea. Quit elevating motherhood over fatherhood in a lame attempt to keep America male-dominated— it shows a tremendous lack of class and a very poor understanding of Western history (I or Brandon can explain this in detail if anyone would like).
The funny thing about any discriminatory 'ism' is that it works both ways: Republicans, you can't say being old is not a handicap then say being young is. Democrats, you can't suggest that women shouldn't run for office because of their children then say men should. Barack Obama, you can't deride President Bush for making specious Al Qaeda-Iraq connections and then connect John McCain to Rush Limbaugh in Spanish-language ads. And John McCain, you can't claim to keep a clean campaign while your supporters chant "TERRORIST, TERRORIST" at your rallies and you do absolutely nothing to stop them; that is deeply and unspeakably shameful. It reflects horribly on your character, Senator McCain, and though I wish you had won the Republican nomination in 2000, I can't in good conscience support a man who would allow such an unbelievably callow thing to occur— you are a war-hero, a dignified politician and a so-called 'maverick': have some fucking self-respect.
Rant # 5) You know what, I don't even need to rant on this one… it pretty much speaks for itself.
A quote from Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP of the NRA. "We will encourage gun owners, hunters and anyone who values freedom to vote McCain-Palin on November 4."
Sigh.
For fuck's sake, someone get this election over with—I can't clear enough head space to write about anything but politics, and it's killing my fiction output.
--Adam
ed. note: in recent days, Senator McCain has actually gotten vocal about his supporters not disrespecting Senator Obama at rallies, for which the author is quite pleased. However, the author maintains his view that John McCain bears a striking resemblance to one Franklin The Turtle.
Rant #1) I have watched each debate and have surprisingly little to say about them. Both candidates are just using the questions as springboards for prepared talking points, which is shameful. The format of the debates, which disallows any meaningful discussion, is ridiculous. Senator Obama may be "winning" them by public estimations, but he's not hammering Senator McCain into the ground—he's not explaining why he would be the best next president, or why McCain would be the worst. And McCain isn't saying much beyond "my opponent just doesn't get it" while evading answers and distancing himself from the president he voted with 90% of the time.
But one thing did leap out at me, at both Presidential debates, on the issue of Pakistani borders. It's a big question right now because Al Qaeda is crafty and knows that most of the time (Iraq not being a notable exception) we respect the borders of international nations which have not attacked us first. Barack said in both debates that if he knew proof-positive where Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to take Bin Laden out, that he would authorize a strike to go across and get Bin Laden.
Senator McCain responded that Senator Obama is foolish because the President should "speak softly and carry a big stick" and not "telegraph his punches". Yet John never said he wouldn't do the exact same thing. So, I am left with two possibilities: either McCain would respect Pakistani sovereignty and not fire the shot if Bin Laden was moonwalking just across that line (doubtful), or he and Obama believe the exact same thing—the only difference is that McCain refuses to say it out loud.
What's that shit painted on the side of his bus again?? "Straight Talk Express"?
Now, I don't know what the answer is. Personally, it makes me nervous to just Tweety Bird it and use "I tawt I taw a terrorist" as justification for pretty much anything. But I do know is that if McCain is going to cling to the political equivalent of "I KEEP IT REAL" then he damn sure better, otherwise he risks alienating people who are actually hoping for straight talk.
Rant #2) This is why I cannot read commentaries by Glenn Beck; the man is a sensationalist asshole—the modern day equivalent of an op-ed Hearst— who makes a living coming up with the wildest arguments he can, no matter how illogical or foolish they may be. The commentary has been linked for your enjoyment, but I will sum it up to save you time:
Mr. Beck is upset about claims of racial undertones from liberal groups/individuals. He points to certain moments on the campaign trail—the quickly infamous "that one", of course, and the "Joe six-pack" images being thrown around by Governor Palin. He claims that the subtext people read into such comments—that they are racially charged attempts to "otherize" Senator Obama and make him seem distant and foreign—are ridiculous, unfounded, and irresponsible. Fine, that is a fair argument. Yet mere sentences later, Mr. Beck basically says 'the subtext of all of this is clear— if you vote against Obama, you are a racist.' Now how in the hell can you decry the use of subtext as irresponsible in one case, then draw imaginary parallels between "please don't call our candidate 'uppity'" (as did Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia) and "Vote for change, or join the KKK."?
Rant #3) Speaking of that particular organization, this Bill Ayers business is K-K-KILLING me.
Let me get this straight, and stop me if I hit a snag: Bill Ayers helped found the Weather Underground. Check.
Weather Underground did some bad shit, some of which Ayers was a part of. Check.
Ayers never faced charges due to prosecutorial misconduct, yet voluntarily turned himself in to authorities in 1980. Check.
30 years later, Bill Ayers is a university professor and former 'Chicago Citizen Of The Year' for his championing of Elementary Education and the writing of a massive grant to benefit under-funded schools. Check.
Barack Obama sat on a Board of Directors with Ayers and, at one point, lived a few streets away. Check.
Obama is "palling around with terrorists". Wait, what the fuck?
Not only is this connection retardedly tenuous and stupidly inflammatory, something else is bothering me. Let's get some other things straight:
John McCain has served nearly 30 years in the US Senate alongside Robert Byrd. Check.
Robert Byrd is an admitted former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Check.
The KKK is considered a domestic terror organization. Check.
So how in the crap is John McCain not "palling around" with a "terrorist who targeted his own country"? EPIC FAIL, McCain campaign— your accusations are saturated with liquid FAIL and country-fried hypocrisy. If Obama is unfit to serve as President because of this, then so is John McCain; let's all write in Ron Paul and get this country back on track.
Sadly, however, most people aren't concerned about this apparent hypocritical stance—I spent an hour and a half in the Foxnews Forums yesterday, trying to get an answer to my question, and in 16,000 replies to "Does Obama-Ayers Connection Matter?" not a single person even attempted to explain to me why dispersing grant money with a former anarchist is magically different from writing legislation with a former Klan member. Instead, I was told that I must be a "comunist" (sic) and love "the Curan" (sadly, sadly sic).
Rant #4) It pisses me off that age has become an issue in this campaign, for either side. Health, certainly. Computer literacy, absolutely. Age, who gives a shit? My grandmother is roughly the same age as John McCain and she has been slamming death's door with her walker for quite a while now. Chuck Norris is almost as old McCain, but he would roundhouse-kick his way through every cabinet meeting for 8 years and still never need to sleep. Age does not matter. Period. McCain is in good health, and has released (to his credit) over 1,000 pages of medical documents for the press to look over, which is way more than Obama has done. He's healthy—who cares if he is 40 or 80? 'Is he the best thing for America?' is the only question I care about.
Another thing I care about is not running shady campaigns. One thing you will never hear in this election cycle is the Obama campaign using McCain's middle name (Sydney) with a strange emphasis, yet members of McCain's campaign constantly refer to Senator Obama as "Barack Hussein". Come on—are you seriously trying to claim that you have no idea what you are doing? That you have no idea what the name 'Hussein' means to some Americans, and that you are not using an accident of birth to diminish Senator Obama's character, reputation, and qualifications by making that association? Give me a fucking break! Hey, Glenn Beck, where was that example in your ramblings? Even you know that is some bullshit.
I will also stab the next asshat who says Sarah Palin should not be President because she needs to be spending time with her kids. You would never hear someone say that Bill Clinton should not have run because he needed to spend time with Chelsea. Quit elevating motherhood over fatherhood in a lame attempt to keep America male-dominated— it shows a tremendous lack of class and a very poor understanding of Western history (I or Brandon can explain this in detail if anyone would like).
The funny thing about any discriminatory 'ism' is that it works both ways: Republicans, you can't say being old is not a handicap then say being young is. Democrats, you can't suggest that women shouldn't run for office because of their children then say men should. Barack Obama, you can't deride President Bush for making specious Al Qaeda-Iraq connections and then connect John McCain to Rush Limbaugh in Spanish-language ads. And John McCain, you can't claim to keep a clean campaign while your supporters chant "TERRORIST, TERRORIST" at your rallies and you do absolutely nothing to stop them; that is deeply and unspeakably shameful. It reflects horribly on your character, Senator McCain, and though I wish you had won the Republican nomination in 2000, I can't in good conscience support a man who would allow such an unbelievably callow thing to occur— you are a war-hero, a dignified politician and a so-called 'maverick': have some fucking self-respect.
Rant # 5) You know what, I don't even need to rant on this one… it pretty much speaks for itself.
A quote from Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP of the NRA. "We will encourage gun owners, hunters and anyone who values freedom to vote McCain-Palin on November 4."
Sigh.
For fuck's sake, someone get this election over with—I can't clear enough head space to write about anything but politics, and it's killing my fiction output.
--Adam
ed. note: in recent days, Senator McCain has actually gotten vocal about his supporters not disrespecting Senator Obama at rallies, for which the author is quite pleased. However, the author maintains his view that John McCain bears a striking resemblance to one Franklin The Turtle.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Voting with your wallet
Quick rant: So let me get this straight- I'm supposed to shell out $2,333 (that's $700 BILLION divided by ~300 million people) to prop up a bunch of businesses that played fast and loose with my debt? Fuck that. They can put up their own billions and buy their own asses out of the problem they created. If I made bad bets in the market no government money would be floating my way. If it's such a big deal, why isn't Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or any of the big bank CEOs putting their money on the line? Fuck these guys. They deserve to be paupers and their companies deserve to die to make way for smaller companies that will (at least for a few years) act responsibly.
Since everyone seems to have money on the brain, I've decided to use mine for good. I spend a lot of time trying to understand why people do what they do and trying to explain why it's often a bad idea. I rarely do anything to get involved though. You can call it cynicism, laziness, or a love of complaining. It goes by many names. But I've decided to do something. I'm going to start using the power of money and voting with my wallet.
I'm not talking about electing representatives based on economics. Under no circumstances should you EVER vote for a leader based on one issue, particularly when that issue is money. Far too many people do and it leads to very bad things (e.g. tax cuts for industry and the wealthy and lax oversight). But using your day to day purchasing power to make a point is a very good idea. It works like this: I'm going to minimize the amount of money I spend on products from companies that do stupid things. That way, my dollars do not end up in the hands of people that will only exploit them. I say minimize because sometimes you don't get a choice.
For starters, I'm buying my produce from a CSA (community supported agriculture) farm. This is a farm that sells locally, practices sustainable farming (no agribusiness, no chemicals, minimal shipping and handling, and good land-use practices like crop rotation), and places itself within the community instead of above it. For ~$20 a week, I will have in-season vegetables and fruits fresh off the vine or tree. And none of my money will go to support ground water contamination, soil erosion, government subsidized over-intensive water use (you think growing wheat in the desert is a good idea?), aquifer depletion, or food that tastes like diesel fuel and feels like rubber.
Further, I'll no longer be buying meat or eggs from grocery stores. Instead, I'll buy from ranchers that allow their animals true free range (not just 'access' which is all that's required now), feed their animals grass (not corn mixed with paper, antibiotics, and ground up leftovers of other animals), and process their animals on-site (instead of at a facility where profit takes precedence over sanitation and ethics). The fact that cows are shipped in large trucks where they shit all over each other before being turned into dinner is fucking ridiculous and repulsive. Feeding cows to cows is fucking stupid. Feeding chicken feathers to chickens, leftover manure to pigs, and jacking animals full of growth hormones are all repugnant practices that should offend far more people. I'm not a stereotypical tree-hugger or some left-wing animal rights activist. But Jesus Christ. These practices are damaging our environment, our health, and are treating these animals as something less than dirt. If you don't have respect for the things you eat, then you don't really have respect for yourself. Brillat-Savarin said it best- "Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are". Apparently I'm feces, chicken feathers, high fructose corn syrup, bovine growth hormones, and pesticide. No wonder I had such a tough time with the ladies. Who wants to date that?
I'm also trying to keep the things I buy with high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup, and the other bajillion corn-derived products to a minimum. Corn does not belong in everything. Corn belongs in corn. And as ethanol for imbibing, not for driving.
Every dollar that goes toward well-tended crops and food animals is a dollar that doesn't support greedy, unethical, and inhumane practices. Will it cost more? Yes. But the food will taste better, be better for you, and will be better for managing the limited resources we have. It'll also keep my fat ass from eating so much. Remember- Price isn't everything and cheap food is cheap for a reason. Don't visit businesses that treat customers as second-class citizens (Best-Buy and Albertson's to name two) and be sure you know where your money is going. Minimize how much of it is ending up in the hands of lawyers, advertising firms, and people who have more wealth than sense. Of course, if you don't, I won't care. I'm not a proselytizer for any cause. I'm just tired of seeing my money used to support a system that is obviously deranged. My dollar is one less the agribusiness complex will have access to until they change their behavior.
Since everyone seems to have money on the brain, I've decided to use mine for good. I spend a lot of time trying to understand why people do what they do and trying to explain why it's often a bad idea. I rarely do anything to get involved though. You can call it cynicism, laziness, or a love of complaining. It goes by many names. But I've decided to do something. I'm going to start using the power of money and voting with my wallet.
I'm not talking about electing representatives based on economics. Under no circumstances should you EVER vote for a leader based on one issue, particularly when that issue is money. Far too many people do and it leads to very bad things (e.g. tax cuts for industry and the wealthy and lax oversight). But using your day to day purchasing power to make a point is a very good idea. It works like this: I'm going to minimize the amount of money I spend on products from companies that do stupid things. That way, my dollars do not end up in the hands of people that will only exploit them. I say minimize because sometimes you don't get a choice.
For starters, I'm buying my produce from a CSA (community supported agriculture) farm. This is a farm that sells locally, practices sustainable farming (no agribusiness, no chemicals, minimal shipping and handling, and good land-use practices like crop rotation), and places itself within the community instead of above it. For ~$20 a week, I will have in-season vegetables and fruits fresh off the vine or tree. And none of my money will go to support ground water contamination, soil erosion, government subsidized over-intensive water use (you think growing wheat in the desert is a good idea?), aquifer depletion, or food that tastes like diesel fuel and feels like rubber.
Further, I'll no longer be buying meat or eggs from grocery stores. Instead, I'll buy from ranchers that allow their animals true free range (not just 'access' which is all that's required now), feed their animals grass (not corn mixed with paper, antibiotics, and ground up leftovers of other animals), and process their animals on-site (instead of at a facility where profit takes precedence over sanitation and ethics). The fact that cows are shipped in large trucks where they shit all over each other before being turned into dinner is fucking ridiculous and repulsive. Feeding cows to cows is fucking stupid. Feeding chicken feathers to chickens, leftover manure to pigs, and jacking animals full of growth hormones are all repugnant practices that should offend far more people. I'm not a stereotypical tree-hugger or some left-wing animal rights activist. But Jesus Christ. These practices are damaging our environment, our health, and are treating these animals as something less than dirt. If you don't have respect for the things you eat, then you don't really have respect for yourself. Brillat-Savarin said it best- "Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are". Apparently I'm feces, chicken feathers, high fructose corn syrup, bovine growth hormones, and pesticide. No wonder I had such a tough time with the ladies. Who wants to date that?
I'm also trying to keep the things I buy with high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup, and the other bajillion corn-derived products to a minimum. Corn does not belong in everything. Corn belongs in corn. And as ethanol for imbibing, not for driving.
Every dollar that goes toward well-tended crops and food animals is a dollar that doesn't support greedy, unethical, and inhumane practices. Will it cost more? Yes. But the food will taste better, be better for you, and will be better for managing the limited resources we have. It'll also keep my fat ass from eating so much. Remember- Price isn't everything and cheap food is cheap for a reason. Don't visit businesses that treat customers as second-class citizens (Best-Buy and Albertson's to name two) and be sure you know where your money is going. Minimize how much of it is ending up in the hands of lawyers, advertising firms, and people who have more wealth than sense. Of course, if you don't, I won't care. I'm not a proselytizer for any cause. I'm just tired of seeing my money used to support a system that is obviously deranged. My dollar is one less the agribusiness complex will have access to until they change their behavior.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Hyperbole and ideologues
Adam pointed out a bit of hyperbole in my post not long ago saying that xenophobia is at an all time high. He made a good point- Alien & Sedition Acts, internment camps, etc. I wrote a comment back listing some of the ridiculousness happening now and somewhat defending my statement. Part of the problem is that we have laws and rules that are not well known and have come under the auspices of "national security", that great catch-all term that says "we can do what we want because we want". In June and July, the Asian Law Caucus and the Electronic Frontier Foundation received 6,000 pages of documents from the Department of Homeland Security from a freedom of information request (after a lawsuit to get them at all I might add). These documents showed that, over the past 8 years (2000-2007), restrictions and oversight of border searches, seizures, and examinations of traveler's personal property were significantly scaled back or dropped altogether. Essentially, behind the scenes, laws were being rewritten to allow increased searches and seizures of anything deemed questionable. While not exactly an Alien and Sedition Act, these types of laws effectively do many of the same things- they keep people afraid, they make it more difficult to speak out against the perceived majority rule, they make anti-American sentiment questionable at best and illegal at worst even if those ideas do NOT involve terrorism (with little recourse to 1st amendment rights), and they push personal privacy into an even smaller corner. The reason the Asian Law Caucus got involved in this mess was because Asian and Middle Eastern travelers are the ones being racially and ethnically targeted by these types of travel laws. My original statement is probably still a bit of hyperbole, but the xenophobic strain runs deep and, at the least, is alive and well and living in.
A study of Republican voters by scientists at Georgia State showed that ideology does, in fact, trump reality. Let me say here: the study was only done using conservative voters and may not be applicable to liberal or independent voters and it was only done with a small number of examples. But the conclusions they reached are also backed up by experience- at least to anyone that has tried to have a political discussion with someone that had basic facts wrong. And those conclusions are troubling to anyone interested in honest public debate and rational decision making.
The study went like this. Participants were shown a fake news story but were told that it came from known news sources (CNN, FOX NEWS, CNN, etc). These stories had incorrect information (such as a broadcast saying that WMDs were found in Iraq or that Saddam Hussein was actively working with al-Qaeda before the war). They were then shown a news story retracting the original story and clarifying the inaccuracies (that no WMDs were ever found and that al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the war started). Those facts that contradicted the observer's ideology and preconceived notions (i.e. that the reasons given for going to war were wrong) were very significantly ignored and, in many cases, actually increased the observer's incorrect beliefs. The retractions and the correction of the inaccurate reporting did little to no good in changing how the participants viewed the issue. Other issues, including stem cell research and taxation were also tested with the same results. All of this suggests that fighting ideology with facts may only lead to entrenchment of incorrect ideas rather than any increase in understanding the situation. I, for one, am unsurprised at the results. Simple observations will tell you people are less willing to accept new information if it does not conform to their preconceived ideas. I'm guilty of this just like everyone else. I've seen it happen during debates on the Iraq war, immigration policy, and the current economic meltdown. You can also debate the interpretation of evidence if there are conflicting stories. But denying evidence altogether or arguing about interpretation when all of the credible evidence says that you're wrong appears to be the preferred solution, which may explain some of the ridiculousness in the world today. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, see all the possible interpretations, and be willing to admit your interpretation may not be the best one, then you may end up killing people over something that was never real.
An interesting side note- FOX NEWS was the primary news source for 33% of the people that believed WMDs were found in Iraq and a whopping 66% of the people that believed Saddam was working with al-Qaeda. Close behind were CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC. Bringing up the rear were print media and PBS, with PBS typically showing the smallest number of misinformed viewers/listeners. [These numbers are from a 2003 study by PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll with a 1.7% margin of error]. Fair and balanced my ass.
The key here is that people be aware of this tendency, that they fight those knee-jerk reactions and, when presented with new information, take the time to incorporate that information into their outlook. The refusal to accept any information unless it conforms to some magical ideal you have is zealotry. And we've all seen where that goes.
A study of Republican voters by scientists at Georgia State showed that ideology does, in fact, trump reality. Let me say here: the study was only done using conservative voters and may not be applicable to liberal or independent voters and it was only done with a small number of examples. But the conclusions they reached are also backed up by experience- at least to anyone that has tried to have a political discussion with someone that had basic facts wrong. And those conclusions are troubling to anyone interested in honest public debate and rational decision making.
The study went like this. Participants were shown a fake news story but were told that it came from known news sources (CNN, FOX NEWS, CNN, etc). These stories had incorrect information (such as a broadcast saying that WMDs were found in Iraq or that Saddam Hussein was actively working with al-Qaeda before the war). They were then shown a news story retracting the original story and clarifying the inaccuracies (that no WMDs were ever found and that al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the war started). Those facts that contradicted the observer's ideology and preconceived notions (i.e. that the reasons given for going to war were wrong) were very significantly ignored and, in many cases, actually increased the observer's incorrect beliefs. The retractions and the correction of the inaccurate reporting did little to no good in changing how the participants viewed the issue. Other issues, including stem cell research and taxation were also tested with the same results. All of this suggests that fighting ideology with facts may only lead to entrenchment of incorrect ideas rather than any increase in understanding the situation. I, for one, am unsurprised at the results. Simple observations will tell you people are less willing to accept new information if it does not conform to their preconceived ideas. I'm guilty of this just like everyone else. I've seen it happen during debates on the Iraq war, immigration policy, and the current economic meltdown. You can also debate the interpretation of evidence if there are conflicting stories. But denying evidence altogether or arguing about interpretation when all of the credible evidence says that you're wrong appears to be the preferred solution, which may explain some of the ridiculousness in the world today. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, see all the possible interpretations, and be willing to admit your interpretation may not be the best one, then you may end up killing people over something that was never real.
An interesting side note- FOX NEWS was the primary news source for 33% of the people that believed WMDs were found in Iraq and a whopping 66% of the people that believed Saddam was working with al-Qaeda. Close behind were CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC. Bringing up the rear were print media and PBS, with PBS typically showing the smallest number of misinformed viewers/listeners. [These numbers are from a 2003 study by PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll with a 1.7% margin of error]. Fair and balanced my ass.
The key here is that people be aware of this tendency, that they fight those knee-jerk reactions and, when presented with new information, take the time to incorporate that information into their outlook. The refusal to accept any information unless it conforms to some magical ideal you have is zealotry. And we've all seen where that goes.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A quick update
The bailout proposed by the treasury secretary is falling on rough times and deaf ears. It's about damn time Congress took a serious look at something rather than rubber stamping it. In case you didn't read the comments to the last post, the proposal to spend said money to float bad business decisions was a whole THREE PAGES LONG. I've written longer documents on the john. At least mine got an A. It doesn't take an economist to give this proposal an F. Three pages to "save" a multi-trillion dollar economy? Everyone's bullshit meter should be ringing loud and at least a good number on the congressional finance committee are.
Only a few weeks ago Paulson was saying that the economy was fine and would not require any bailouts. The fact that this proposal showed up poorly written, poorly thought out, and poorly presented to the people makes it smell awful fishy. The proposal, as is, includes zero oversight, zero methods for recouping this money, zero methods for the taxpayers to claim any of the profits generated from this money, and would drastically expand the treasuries powers to lend money in the future with only the swipe of a pen. It's also suspicious that the banks, lenders, and mortgage companies are going to get a say in how the plan (if there ever is one) is structured. What that usually means is freebies to the industry, bad terms for the taxpayers, and ultimately no responsibility taken and no lessons learned from the excessive risk.
If anyone is interested, I could churn out an actual analysis (which means facts and numbers, making connections among different lines of reasoning, and using these connections to reach reasonable conclusions about the situation- NOT opinion, grand-standing, or flawed logic common to 'analysis' on FOX NEWS and CNN) explaining how and why this all happened. I've been following it since it all started in the late 90's and it's a whale of a tale. It's complicated and interesting, but I'm not going to take the time unless there is interest. This one would require more thought than rant and a good explanation for concepts that you may be unfamiliar with (like credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, leverage, or risk exposure). Even if you aren't economically inclined this is a rare opportunity for the public to see what is going on behind the scenes of their financial system and I encourage everyone to really try to understand the big picture, the details, and start thinking about how these types of issues will be addressed by the next administration. It's Enron on a massive scaled. And it was totally, completely preventable with common sense.
Only a few weeks ago Paulson was saying that the economy was fine and would not require any bailouts. The fact that this proposal showed up poorly written, poorly thought out, and poorly presented to the people makes it smell awful fishy. The proposal, as is, includes zero oversight, zero methods for recouping this money, zero methods for the taxpayers to claim any of the profits generated from this money, and would drastically expand the treasuries powers to lend money in the future with only the swipe of a pen. It's also suspicious that the banks, lenders, and mortgage companies are going to get a say in how the plan (if there ever is one) is structured. What that usually means is freebies to the industry, bad terms for the taxpayers, and ultimately no responsibility taken and no lessons learned from the excessive risk.
If anyone is interested, I could churn out an actual analysis (which means facts and numbers, making connections among different lines of reasoning, and using these connections to reach reasonable conclusions about the situation- NOT opinion, grand-standing, or flawed logic common to 'analysis' on FOX NEWS and CNN) explaining how and why this all happened. I've been following it since it all started in the late 90's and it's a whale of a tale. It's complicated and interesting, but I'm not going to take the time unless there is interest. This one would require more thought than rant and a good explanation for concepts that you may be unfamiliar with (like credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, leverage, or risk exposure). Even if you aren't economically inclined this is a rare opportunity for the public to see what is going on behind the scenes of their financial system and I encourage everyone to really try to understand the big picture, the details, and start thinking about how these types of issues will be addressed by the next administration. It's Enron on a massive scaled. And it was totally, completely preventable with common sense.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The bottom line
Once again I got stiffed. Because the Seahawks were sold out, I got stuck watching a garbage game when there were other perfectly good games to watch. I hope all the teams that this happens to lose, because the fans are losing out and the game is built on the fans. No fans, no NFL. Remember the XFL? Of course you don't. No fans, no game.
Alright. On to more important things. You might be reading a lot of financial news lately, what with the implosion of the mortgage market, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion bailout, the sell-off of banks, and the folding of Lehman Brothers. There are a lot of articles and "analysis" purporting to explain the root causes of the situation. They call it "infinite optimism" or "misguided enthusiasm" or "poisonous debt positions". It all means GREED. They don't call it that but the reality is that this whole situation was caused by greed- greedy banks, greedy lenders, and greedy mortgage companies.
There are two truths that seem to have gone unnoticed so far in the debate. One- this is what you get for taking mortgages, re-packaging them as debt securities, and then reselling them to the people that have the mortgages in the first place. Essentially, you're selling people their own mortgages to invest in. It's the same principle as the meat industry uses- take the leftovers, grind them up, and feed them back to the animals (animals that are NOT carnivorous I might add). In that case, we ended up with E. coli and mad cow disease (which caused CJD in humans). In this case, we ended up with a debilitating crash of the housing and financial markets and a $700 billion dollar taxpayer-funded bailout of greedy businesses. Playing stupid games with money in order to make a quick buck ended up a massive failure. Who would have thought?
The second truth- policies, rules, and regulations (many not even official laws) WERE in place to prevent these types of situations from happening. They were implemented by the Roosevelt administration to address some of the key reasons for the Great Depression and the massive stock market collapse of 1929. These laws were implemented to curb speculation, to keep lenders from giving money to people unable to repay, and to keep businesses from getting into a position where their failure imperiled an entire industry (think anti-monopoly laws). They were implemented to constrain and watchdog government programs such as the FHA to make sure these types of institutions were looking out for the public good and not acting as profit seeking entities. These rules and regulations were eroded over time under pressure from big business and zealots that believed markets are always self-correcting and self-sustaining. They were decimated by Reagan and Bush Sr. amid economic policy that proved, in the long run, to be a massive failure for much of America. I mean, for crying out loud, Reagan believed in the "magic of markets" (a direct quote) like they were somehow separate from the social, political, and cultural climate of the people that used them. (As a side note, the policies enacted by Reagan have since come under the more appropriate moniker "voodoo economics".)
Without the regulatory and oversight structures in place, it was simply a matter of waiting for people to do what they do- put short term profits and money ahead of responsible business growth and sustainable practices. And here we are. My surprise is that it took almost two decades, although the S&L fallout in the 1980's and the dot com collapse at the turn of the century were good harbingers of the things to come. To be fair, there are economic policies, cultural norms, and types of money and loans that were unheard of and unthinkable when FDR and the Congress implemented the regulatory strictures after the stock market crash. So it's reasonable to think that this type of meltdown could still happen. But under a sophisticated regulatory structure that was meant to point out that lending people money with no income verification was stupid (and the rules used to be there), the chances it would happen at all were greatly reduced.
I guess a big thank you is in order to the market zealots, the anti-regulation crowd, the CEOs of the corporations that put profit over common sense, and to the members of Congress and the White House that listened to what any reasonable person would point out as bad logic. If we're going to worship money and profits, we may as well go whole hog. After all, what's faith without blind faith?
I close with our own President elect. He stood on the White House lawn and acknowledged for the first time, more than a year after it was obvious that the housing market was bust, more than 9 months after it was obvious we were in a recession, and more than a two months after it was obvious that the problems ran deeper than just Fannie and Freddie, that the economy is fucked. Of course, he phrased it as a rough patch, turbulence, and other non-committal garbage, but at least the beginnings of a hint of realization were there. He then spent copious amounts of time arguing that markets are the answer to all life's problems (an exaggeration, admittedly, but not by much) while shoving money into the pockets of companies that deserve nothing more than complete removal from the planet, once again proving that government is willing to prop up big business on Wall Street (the S&Ls, airlines, banks, brokers, government entities like Fannie and Freddie) but not on Main Street. All this underscores the bottom line: greed will get you places in this society. Even if you sell people back debt they already have, make bad business choices, and destroy the home ownership dreams of millions, you too can have a fat severance package, no responsibility, and a loan from Uncle Sam's wallet at artificially low interest rates to rebuild your empire and do it all again.
Anybody that doesn't lay the blame for the current situation on greed is trying to hide something. The root cause is simple. It's the ramifications, the ripples throughout the entire economy, that are complicated. The effects of the event are up for debate. The cause is not. It was pure, unadulterated greed.
Alright. On to more important things. You might be reading a lot of financial news lately, what with the implosion of the mortgage market, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion bailout, the sell-off of banks, and the folding of Lehman Brothers. There are a lot of articles and "analysis" purporting to explain the root causes of the situation. They call it "infinite optimism" or "misguided enthusiasm" or "poisonous debt positions". It all means GREED. They don't call it that but the reality is that this whole situation was caused by greed- greedy banks, greedy lenders, and greedy mortgage companies.
There are two truths that seem to have gone unnoticed so far in the debate. One- this is what you get for taking mortgages, re-packaging them as debt securities, and then reselling them to the people that have the mortgages in the first place. Essentially, you're selling people their own mortgages to invest in. It's the same principle as the meat industry uses- take the leftovers, grind them up, and feed them back to the animals (animals that are NOT carnivorous I might add). In that case, we ended up with E. coli and mad cow disease (which caused CJD in humans). In this case, we ended up with a debilitating crash of the housing and financial markets and a $700 billion dollar taxpayer-funded bailout of greedy businesses. Playing stupid games with money in order to make a quick buck ended up a massive failure. Who would have thought?
The second truth- policies, rules, and regulations (many not even official laws) WERE in place to prevent these types of situations from happening. They were implemented by the Roosevelt administration to address some of the key reasons for the Great Depression and the massive stock market collapse of 1929. These laws were implemented to curb speculation, to keep lenders from giving money to people unable to repay, and to keep businesses from getting into a position where their failure imperiled an entire industry (think anti-monopoly laws). They were implemented to constrain and watchdog government programs such as the FHA to make sure these types of institutions were looking out for the public good and not acting as profit seeking entities. These rules and regulations were eroded over time under pressure from big business and zealots that believed markets are always self-correcting and self-sustaining. They were decimated by Reagan and Bush Sr. amid economic policy that proved, in the long run, to be a massive failure for much of America. I mean, for crying out loud, Reagan believed in the "magic of markets" (a direct quote) like they were somehow separate from the social, political, and cultural climate of the people that used them. (As a side note, the policies enacted by Reagan have since come under the more appropriate moniker "voodoo economics".)
Without the regulatory and oversight structures in place, it was simply a matter of waiting for people to do what they do- put short term profits and money ahead of responsible business growth and sustainable practices. And here we are. My surprise is that it took almost two decades, although the S&L fallout in the 1980's and the dot com collapse at the turn of the century were good harbingers of the things to come. To be fair, there are economic policies, cultural norms, and types of money and loans that were unheard of and unthinkable when FDR and the Congress implemented the regulatory strictures after the stock market crash. So it's reasonable to think that this type of meltdown could still happen. But under a sophisticated regulatory structure that was meant to point out that lending people money with no income verification was stupid (and the rules used to be there), the chances it would happen at all were greatly reduced.
I guess a big thank you is in order to the market zealots, the anti-regulation crowd, the CEOs of the corporations that put profit over common sense, and to the members of Congress and the White House that listened to what any reasonable person would point out as bad logic. If we're going to worship money and profits, we may as well go whole hog. After all, what's faith without blind faith?
I close with our own President elect. He stood on the White House lawn and acknowledged for the first time, more than a year after it was obvious that the housing market was bust, more than 9 months after it was obvious we were in a recession, and more than a two months after it was obvious that the problems ran deeper than just Fannie and Freddie, that the economy is fucked. Of course, he phrased it as a rough patch, turbulence, and other non-committal garbage, but at least the beginnings of a hint of realization were there. He then spent copious amounts of time arguing that markets are the answer to all life's problems (an exaggeration, admittedly, but not by much) while shoving money into the pockets of companies that deserve nothing more than complete removal from the planet, once again proving that government is willing to prop up big business on Wall Street (the S&Ls, airlines, banks, brokers, government entities like Fannie and Freddie) but not on Main Street. All this underscores the bottom line: greed will get you places in this society. Even if you sell people back debt they already have, make bad business choices, and destroy the home ownership dreams of millions, you too can have a fat severance package, no responsibility, and a loan from Uncle Sam's wallet at artificially low interest rates to rebuild your empire and do it all again.
Anybody that doesn't lay the blame for the current situation on greed is trying to hide something. The root cause is simple. It's the ramifications, the ripples throughout the entire economy, that are complicated. The effects of the event are up for debate. The cause is not. It was pure, unadulterated greed.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The wide world of sports
It was a distressing sports week. Ed Hochuli blew a major call in the San Diego-Denver matchup, the Eagles failed to hold their two score lead against Dallas, T.O. was an asshole, and Maverick Josh Howard is in the news for making "un-patriotic" comments.
Let's start with the most ridiculous item. Howard, at a charity flag football game, was caught on camera saying "'The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this shit. I'm black." To be fair, this is not the proper place to express your opinion about America. It was a poor choice of words and poor timing. But the sentiment rings very true and white America needs to understand that rather than condemning it off-hand. There are millions (and I mean MILLIONS) of people that live here but do not have any reason to have respect for American symbolism be they white or black, native or foreign. Racism is rampant, sexism is virulent, xenophobia is at an all time high, and the leadership is the most unpopular since these types of things were recorded and studied. Those aren't really reasons to get weepy about nationalism. I'll also defend to the death Josh's right to say what he wants when he wants. That's written right into the Constitution and it you don't defend that, then you're not being very 'American'. For some reason, everyone in this country is always expected to kowtow to the flag, the anthem, and the almighty lapel pin. Personally, during the national anthem I don't put my hand over my heart, sometimes I leave my hat on, and sometimes I just sit right through it. Sort of depends on my mood. It's not meant as a disrespectful act and should not be construed as such. Like many people I just don't respect symbols because they are too easily manipulated. Barack not wearing a lapel pin does not make him un-American and Howard's lack of anthem enthusiasm does not make him un-American. I respect honest actions and people that have earned respect. Howard should have picked a better forum for his grievance, but dismissing his opinion could be considered just as unpatriotic.
Speaking of respect, some kudos are in order for Ed Hochuli. He blew the call big time. Unfortunately, because of bullshit anti-competitive NFL and broadcast rules I didn't get to see the game. But he had the testicular fortitude to stand up, apologize for the call, admit that he made a mistake, and do the best he can to rectify the situation. Of course, no one will pay attention and he'll get booed at the next game he refs. That's an action that deserves respect.
And T.O. I don't even like to mention him because he already gets enough attention. He's an amazing athlete, a great competitor, and a great football player. But none of those make him a good person and once again he's been an asshole and lauded for it. During the Philly-Dallas game he scored a touchdown and afterwards ran around the field doing the Philly Eagle arm-flap. Should have been a 15 yard penalty for tauting and a hefty fine. This action, combined with his previous asinine antics and stunts, show a supreme lack of respect for his team, his opponents, his sport, and the fans. These are not actions deserving of hours of television time. The message is clear though: if you're good at something you can be an asshole and people will love you anyway. That's not a good message to send to young athletes. Of course, you can always argue that it's just "entertainment" and not disrespectful. But this argument doesn't hold water when you further examine his verbal attacks on his current and previous teammates and his emphasis on himself rather than his team. Of course, he can say whatever he wants. As long as this type of behavior is acceptable and makes the news reels, it will continue and will be viewed as acceptable by young athletes. Personally, I think it detracts from the game. Individual effort and achievement should be lauded, but bad sportsmanship should never be rewarded.
You might argue that there's a bit of a double standard here- I'm ragging on T.O. for being disrespectful but not Josh Howard for being disrespectful. To me, there are some important differences. T.O.'s actions are continually unsportsmanlike and disrespectful. Howard's comments were a one-time thing. T.O.'s actions set a poor example for young athletes and are directly targeted at specific people (fans, opponents). Howard's comments did not deliberately target any person. They don't even target a group. Rather, his comments targeted an idea, a symbol, an intangible that only has meaning because we give it meaning. Further more, freedom of speech protects Howard's opinion (though I agree that he should have chosen a more appropriate forum) while T.O.'s taunting and spectacles are not protected by any "freedom of actions" clause. In fact, many sports seek to stop this kind of show-boating behavior in order to make the sport's image more professional. The Mavericks have already taken unspecified actions to curb future incidents like these. The Cowboys have done no such thing for T.O.'s disrespect. T.O.'s actions are antithetical to the notion of sportsmanship. Howard's comment, while not exactly pro-sportsman, is exactly what America was founded on- unhappiness with the status quo (i.e. British oversight) and a rejection of its symbols (East India tea, the British flag, etc). Finally, T.O,'s actions could never be construed as respectful or appropriate even if he changed the forum. Howard's comment would be perfectly appropriate off the field during a discussion of current social issues, current racial issues, politics in America, or any of a number of other topics. The message was good, the forum was not. T.O. does not have a productive message under any circumstances.
Let's start with the most ridiculous item. Howard, at a charity flag football game, was caught on camera saying "'The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this shit. I'm black." To be fair, this is not the proper place to express your opinion about America. It was a poor choice of words and poor timing. But the sentiment rings very true and white America needs to understand that rather than condemning it off-hand. There are millions (and I mean MILLIONS) of people that live here but do not have any reason to have respect for American symbolism be they white or black, native or foreign. Racism is rampant, sexism is virulent, xenophobia is at an all time high, and the leadership is the most unpopular since these types of things were recorded and studied. Those aren't really reasons to get weepy about nationalism. I'll also defend to the death Josh's right to say what he wants when he wants. That's written right into the Constitution and it you don't defend that, then you're not being very 'American'. For some reason, everyone in this country is always expected to kowtow to the flag, the anthem, and the almighty lapel pin. Personally, during the national anthem I don't put my hand over my heart, sometimes I leave my hat on, and sometimes I just sit right through it. Sort of depends on my mood. It's not meant as a disrespectful act and should not be construed as such. Like many people I just don't respect symbols because they are too easily manipulated. Barack not wearing a lapel pin does not make him un-American and Howard's lack of anthem enthusiasm does not make him un-American. I respect honest actions and people that have earned respect. Howard should have picked a better forum for his grievance, but dismissing his opinion could be considered just as unpatriotic.
Speaking of respect, some kudos are in order for Ed Hochuli. He blew the call big time. Unfortunately, because of bullshit anti-competitive NFL and broadcast rules I didn't get to see the game. But he had the testicular fortitude to stand up, apologize for the call, admit that he made a mistake, and do the best he can to rectify the situation. Of course, no one will pay attention and he'll get booed at the next game he refs. That's an action that deserves respect.
And T.O. I don't even like to mention him because he already gets enough attention. He's an amazing athlete, a great competitor, and a great football player. But none of those make him a good person and once again he's been an asshole and lauded for it. During the Philly-Dallas game he scored a touchdown and afterwards ran around the field doing the Philly Eagle arm-flap. Should have been a 15 yard penalty for tauting and a hefty fine. This action, combined with his previous asinine antics and stunts, show a supreme lack of respect for his team, his opponents, his sport, and the fans. These are not actions deserving of hours of television time. The message is clear though: if you're good at something you can be an asshole and people will love you anyway. That's not a good message to send to young athletes. Of course, you can always argue that it's just "entertainment" and not disrespectful. But this argument doesn't hold water when you further examine his verbal attacks on his current and previous teammates and his emphasis on himself rather than his team. Of course, he can say whatever he wants. As long as this type of behavior is acceptable and makes the news reels, it will continue and will be viewed as acceptable by young athletes. Personally, I think it detracts from the game. Individual effort and achievement should be lauded, but bad sportsmanship should never be rewarded.
You might argue that there's a bit of a double standard here- I'm ragging on T.O. for being disrespectful but not Josh Howard for being disrespectful. To me, there are some important differences. T.O.'s actions are continually unsportsmanlike and disrespectful. Howard's comments were a one-time thing. T.O.'s actions set a poor example for young athletes and are directly targeted at specific people (fans, opponents). Howard's comments did not deliberately target any person. They don't even target a group. Rather, his comments targeted an idea, a symbol, an intangible that only has meaning because we give it meaning. Further more, freedom of speech protects Howard's opinion (though I agree that he should have chosen a more appropriate forum) while T.O.'s taunting and spectacles are not protected by any "freedom of actions" clause. In fact, many sports seek to stop this kind of show-boating behavior in order to make the sport's image more professional. The Mavericks have already taken unspecified actions to curb future incidents like these. The Cowboys have done no such thing for T.O.'s disrespect. T.O.'s actions are antithetical to the notion of sportsmanship. Howard's comment, while not exactly pro-sportsman, is exactly what America was founded on- unhappiness with the status quo (i.e. British oversight) and a rejection of its symbols (East India tea, the British flag, etc). Finally, T.O,'s actions could never be construed as respectful or appropriate even if he changed the forum. Howard's comment would be perfectly appropriate off the field during a discussion of current social issues, current racial issues, politics in America, or any of a number of other topics. The message was good, the forum was not. T.O. does not have a productive message under any circumstances.
Friday, September 12, 2008
For those that didn't believe me
This is my last political post for awhile. It's becoming too disgusting to watch and too painful and frustrating to see people falling for it.
For those of you that didn't believe me and wanted to argue that the current Iraq war is nothing like Vietnam, put this in your pipe and smoke it. It was finally revealed (although nearly 2 months late) that Bush approved both raids into and bombing of Pakistan. Does anyone else remember Nixon and the secret bombings of Cambodia or am I the only one paying attention? Now we have secret military actions being taken against a sovereign nation with no public oversight. On top of that, Pakistan has repeatedly refused access to our military (probably because they see what happens when you allow it- at least they're smart enough to make the connection). While we're trying to make Russia feel bad for its behavior in Georgia, we're busy doing the same thing in Iraq AND continuing to make unilateral military decisions in Pakistan. Fuck this government and everyone attached to it. Whatever small accolades they get in the history books with be too good for them. And I hope they suffer, in this life or the next, for all of the pain they've caused others and all the deceit they've produced to justify it. It's enough to make me not have kids because I don't want them to have to see or deal with this type of ignorant, unethical, straight up retarded behavior.
I was going to put up the positions of the different candidates on various issues. But I'm done and here's why. Based on Palin's behavior I've concluded that it's become totally unnecessary. She's a liar (by claiming that she is against earmarks and pork barrel legislation because she vetoed the $233 million "bridge to nowhere"- meanwhile she still accepted that entire amount for other projects), is hastily backtracking and trying to 'clarify' her claim that the soldiers in Iraq are on "a mission from God" even though that's exactly what she meant and had plenty of time to correct the statement since she read her speech beforehand, and is now claiming that she is on-board with climate science and has challenged the media to prove that she ever said humans were not responsible even though that's exactly what she's spent the last decade claiming. So I'm done. I wouldn't vote for McCain simply because of Palin. And now I'm not voting for him because he 1) doesn't comprehend basic English and 2) is ok with double-standards. McCain claims Barack is sexist because he referred to McCAIN'S POLICIES as a "pig in lipstick" and claiming he was referring to Palin. I listened to the speech and nowhere, FUCKING NOWHERE, did Barack refer to Palin as a pig in lipstick. So McCain can suck it. That only shows he wasn't listening to the speech, is looking for a distraction from discussions of actual issues, and is about character assassination over substantial debate (although to be fair Obama has run a few attack ads, though as far as I am aware not with this type of personal attack or with such a blatant manipulation of words). On top of that, McCain said EXACTLY THE SAME THING about Hillary Clinton's policies. Therefore, if Barack is sexist, McCain is both sexist and a swindler for not mentioning his own sexism. Fuck this type of politics. It's the same shit we've been handed the last eight years, although in retrospect it's pretty much been part of the game since day one. That doesn't make it right or good. But unless the voting masses start to see through it, that's all we'll get.
Fuck politics. You can have them.
Update: Today the McCain camp publicly acknowledged and defended Palin's inquiries into banning books from the public library of Wasilla while she was mayor. While she never explicitly banned books, her explanation of the events are not consistent with the public record nor are they consistent with accounts reported by the librarians. Apparently the McCain campaign is also ok with her attempts to fire the head librarian because Palin didn't have her "full support". Do I really need to point out that this is the same type of partisan, unethical firings that Alberto Gonzalez resigned over? Are people's memories really that short? While Gonzalez was never brought to trial and Palin never actually fired the librarian (mostly due to local political pressure in Wasilla) it all adds up to something very fishy and highly questionable. I guess sometimes the word "change" doesn't really mean change. Sometimes it means doing the same thing. I should also point out that that's a clinical sign of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. To be clear, none of these people are clinically or medically insane. But continuing to do questionable things when the American public has made it manifestly clear that's not what they want (e.g. the public pressure on Gonzalez to resign) is highly suspect as a form of change.
For those of you that didn't believe me and wanted to argue that the current Iraq war is nothing like Vietnam, put this in your pipe and smoke it. It was finally revealed (although nearly 2 months late) that Bush approved both raids into and bombing of Pakistan. Does anyone else remember Nixon and the secret bombings of Cambodia or am I the only one paying attention? Now we have secret military actions being taken against a sovereign nation with no public oversight. On top of that, Pakistan has repeatedly refused access to our military (probably because they see what happens when you allow it- at least they're smart enough to make the connection). While we're trying to make Russia feel bad for its behavior in Georgia, we're busy doing the same thing in Iraq AND continuing to make unilateral military decisions in Pakistan. Fuck this government and everyone attached to it. Whatever small accolades they get in the history books with be too good for them. And I hope they suffer, in this life or the next, for all of the pain they've caused others and all the deceit they've produced to justify it. It's enough to make me not have kids because I don't want them to have to see or deal with this type of ignorant, unethical, straight up retarded behavior.
I was going to put up the positions of the different candidates on various issues. But I'm done and here's why. Based on Palin's behavior I've concluded that it's become totally unnecessary. She's a liar (by claiming that she is against earmarks and pork barrel legislation because she vetoed the $233 million "bridge to nowhere"- meanwhile she still accepted that entire amount for other projects), is hastily backtracking and trying to 'clarify' her claim that the soldiers in Iraq are on "a mission from God" even though that's exactly what she meant and had plenty of time to correct the statement since she read her speech beforehand, and is now claiming that she is on-board with climate science and has challenged the media to prove that she ever said humans were not responsible even though that's exactly what she's spent the last decade claiming. So I'm done. I wouldn't vote for McCain simply because of Palin. And now I'm not voting for him because he 1) doesn't comprehend basic English and 2) is ok with double-standards. McCain claims Barack is sexist because he referred to McCAIN'S POLICIES as a "pig in lipstick" and claiming he was referring to Palin. I listened to the speech and nowhere, FUCKING NOWHERE, did Barack refer to Palin as a pig in lipstick. So McCain can suck it. That only shows he wasn't listening to the speech, is looking for a distraction from discussions of actual issues, and is about character assassination over substantial debate (although to be fair Obama has run a few attack ads, though as far as I am aware not with this type of personal attack or with such a blatant manipulation of words). On top of that, McCain said EXACTLY THE SAME THING about Hillary Clinton's policies. Therefore, if Barack is sexist, McCain is both sexist and a swindler for not mentioning his own sexism. Fuck this type of politics. It's the same shit we've been handed the last eight years, although in retrospect it's pretty much been part of the game since day one. That doesn't make it right or good. But unless the voting masses start to see through it, that's all we'll get.
Fuck politics. You can have them.
Update: Today the McCain camp publicly acknowledged and defended Palin's inquiries into banning books from the public library of Wasilla while she was mayor. While she never explicitly banned books, her explanation of the events are not consistent with the public record nor are they consistent with accounts reported by the librarians. Apparently the McCain campaign is also ok with her attempts to fire the head librarian because Palin didn't have her "full support". Do I really need to point out that this is the same type of partisan, unethical firings that Alberto Gonzalez resigned over? Are people's memories really that short? While Gonzalez was never brought to trial and Palin never actually fired the librarian (mostly due to local political pressure in Wasilla) it all adds up to something very fishy and highly questionable. I guess sometimes the word "change" doesn't really mean change. Sometimes it means doing the same thing. I should also point out that that's a clinical sign of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. To be clear, none of these people are clinically or medically insane. But continuing to do questionable things when the American public has made it manifestly clear that's not what they want (e.g. the public pressure on Gonzalez to resign) is highly suspect as a form of change.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
When the Bullet Hits the Bone and other memorable subtitled tracks from the great Golden Earring
Tomorrow we'll discuss why Vietnam II (i.e. Iraq: Part Deux) is even more like Vietnam after today's intolerable revelations. History is lovingly circular and life is hilariously cruel. Right now I've got a piece by my dawg, my homie, and my resident bullshit expert Adam. Enjoy.
Don't ask me why, but I happened to read one of the most entertaining magazines of my life recently—American Rifleman. Actually, ask me why; I try to read as widely as possible. Time and Newsweek, Rolling Stone and Pitchfork, Mere Christianity and The Power Of Myth. I watch CNN and Fox News; I drink Coke and Pepsi. I like opposing viewpoints.
In case you were curious, American Rifleman is a darling little NRA-sponsored publication dedicated to such varied topics as: cleaning guns, owning guns, and, um, shooting guns. But the particular "article" which I had the extreme "pleasure" of reading, during a particularly grueling bowel movement, was about the evils of gun control, and three things immediately jumped out at me which set my Internal Bullshit Meter (IBM) from its standard grey-green color to piping hot red.
To begin, the article told the story of three women in a house. The door was kicked in and one woman was attacked. The others hid upstairs and when they heard only silence, crept back downstairs. Unfortunately, the bad guys were waiting and attacked them as well. The very next sentence—the author's witty attempt at a transition, I suppose—was "Now, I don't know if any of those three women wanted to own a gun, but…" and my meter clicked immediately to Bullshit Alert Yellow.
Since when are sympathy stories a valid way to argue constitutional law? Why not write about a toddler who finds a gun in his home and shoots himself? Or a father who blows his back out while cleaning his gun and bleeds to death on the table during Thanksgiving dinner in front of his wife, kids, Auntie Rose, and those adorable twins from next door? Sympathy stories mean nothing, and are designed not to prove points, but to make people sad/scared enough to believe whatever specious arguments follow (and they were specious).
The second jump on the IBM, to Bullshit Alert Orange, came in the form of the phrase "in clear violation of the intent of the founding fathers" in referring to gun-control legislation. This is stupid for several reasons: 1) every founding father had a different intent—those dudes could barely agree on anything, and some of them openly hated each other, so don't pretend we've nailed down their intentions. 2) even if we could magically average intent and get Ben Franklin's thoughts on home invasion in high-density urban areas, or assault weapons, or a 100-year-old man in a wheelchair's God-given right to shoot a lion in the face, since when are bound to follow that? Last time I checked, the constitution didn't say 'rule your lives based on what you think we might have wanted' but 'rule your lives based on this document and your common sense'. 3) 'intent' is a fundamentally unsound argument— would you refuse to school your children just because great-great-grandpa probably didn't intend for his ancestors to go to college? Hell no you wouldn't—you'd scoff at an old fuck who couldn't see they way society was headed, and know that you know better.
But fine, let's play the 'intent' game for a minute. Want to claim 'intent' to keep your guns? Fine, but women can no longer vote. Oh, snap! That was intent too! Do you own a house? If not, you can't vote either— intent got us again! I won't even go into who should be counted as three-fifths of a person; the point is, 'intent' is a garbage argument intended to draw on patriotic sentiment and goad people into doing/believing things, as if Jefferson and Hamilton having believed something makes it automatically worth believing. Fuck those old bastards— they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
So, with my IBM firmly in Orange and red spots floating in front of my eyes (grueling, grueling dump, I tell you), I read the last few paragraphs of the "article", wherein the author attacked 'revisionist' courts that had the audacity to claim grandpa shouldn't own an ak-47 because he's not part of a well-regulated militia. Suddenly, I had this blinding flash of insight that went:
BULLSHIT ALERT RED! BULLSHIT ALERT RED!
Someone should get this "author" a dictionary, because he/she has forgotten what 'revisionist' means in this country, which is to take the established legal stand on an issue (usually based on the constitution) and revise it. By disallowing gun ownership for those not in well-regulated militias, these courts are actually being constructionist courts. Another thing: courts can only be revisionist in this sense when revising previously established constitutional issues. Pay attention— on topics like stem-cell research and gay marriage, conservative pundits love to spew the phrase 'revisionist', although neither of those topics was addressed in the constitution, and therefore never had an established legal status to be revised. Only in retrospect have people tried to insert an asinine phrase like 'two dicks and no chicks = bad' into the constitution and pretend it was there all along.
It's funny to me that what American Rifleman actually wants is one of those crazy, activist, revisionist, non-constructionist courts to say "anyone can own any gun no matter what" even though that is clearly not what the Second Amendment states. What's funnier is that American Rifleman won't admit this, instead skewing reality to make it appear as if those dirty liberals are singeing the constitution yet again. Of course this "author" knows what 'revisionist' means, and knows the word is being used incorrectly, and so does the "editor" of this "magazine". But revisionist has become such a liberal-associated smear that they used it anyway, rendering their own argument about as strong as a wall made of Styrofoam and mortared with Cheez Whiz.
What I don't understand, and maybe someone can help me with this, is: why is revisionism is such a feared doctrine? Because it was originally associated with Marxian socialism? Because it puts the focus on evolutionary policy making (they're trying to say Jefferson was a monkey!)? Because change is scary?
Was it not a crazy revisionist court that said black people should be allowed to drink out of any water fountain? Or that women should be allowed to vote? Most of the social changes which have made this country more open and more equal were facilitated, if not initiated, by 'revisionist' courts. Sodomy should not be illegal, nor should miscegenation, yet without a court to strike down various old and outdated laws, revising our understanding of right and wrong, I could face jail time for marrying a Mexican, or making love to her poop chute.
It seems to me that revisionism is one of the biggest strengths of our legal system. It means that we are not strictly bound to the desires and minutiae of a handful of old, wealthy, white men with roughly 9th grade educations who could never have foreseen what America would look like in 200 years. It means that we have a strong frame and we hang the particular clothing of our society on it, just as previous generations did, and just as future generations will.
This has kept America progressing socially at a reasonable clip without the need for revolutions every 50 or 60 years to get things done. Remember: we are one of the few countries on Earth to not have witnessed a major internal threat to our political system in almost 150 years, precisely because of the fluidity of our system— because the founding fathers were geniuses in that they gave us something to build on, not something to live under.
All I know is that when my bullshit alert hits red, it's time put the "publication" down, wipe, and go play some World of Warcraft—at least that make-believe is more silly and fun than aggravating and hypocritical.
Don't ask me why, but I happened to read one of the most entertaining magazines of my life recently—American Rifleman. Actually, ask me why; I try to read as widely as possible. Time and Newsweek, Rolling Stone and Pitchfork, Mere Christianity and The Power Of Myth. I watch CNN and Fox News; I drink Coke and Pepsi. I like opposing viewpoints.
In case you were curious, American Rifleman is a darling little NRA-sponsored publication dedicated to such varied topics as: cleaning guns, owning guns, and, um, shooting guns. But the particular "article" which I had the extreme "pleasure" of reading, during a particularly grueling bowel movement, was about the evils of gun control, and three things immediately jumped out at me which set my Internal Bullshit Meter (IBM) from its standard grey-green color to piping hot red.
To begin, the article told the story of three women in a house. The door was kicked in and one woman was attacked. The others hid upstairs and when they heard only silence, crept back downstairs. Unfortunately, the bad guys were waiting and attacked them as well. The very next sentence—the author's witty attempt at a transition, I suppose—was "Now, I don't know if any of those three women wanted to own a gun, but…" and my meter clicked immediately to Bullshit Alert Yellow.
Since when are sympathy stories a valid way to argue constitutional law? Why not write about a toddler who finds a gun in his home and shoots himself? Or a father who blows his back out while cleaning his gun and bleeds to death on the table during Thanksgiving dinner in front of his wife, kids, Auntie Rose, and those adorable twins from next door? Sympathy stories mean nothing, and are designed not to prove points, but to make people sad/scared enough to believe whatever specious arguments follow (and they were specious).
The second jump on the IBM, to Bullshit Alert Orange, came in the form of the phrase "in clear violation of the intent of the founding fathers" in referring to gun-control legislation. This is stupid for several reasons: 1) every founding father had a different intent—those dudes could barely agree on anything, and some of them openly hated each other, so don't pretend we've nailed down their intentions. 2) even if we could magically average intent and get Ben Franklin's thoughts on home invasion in high-density urban areas, or assault weapons, or a 100-year-old man in a wheelchair's God-given right to shoot a lion in the face, since when are bound to follow that? Last time I checked, the constitution didn't say 'rule your lives based on what you think we might have wanted' but 'rule your lives based on this document and your common sense'. 3) 'intent' is a fundamentally unsound argument— would you refuse to school your children just because great-great-grandpa probably didn't intend for his ancestors to go to college? Hell no you wouldn't—you'd scoff at an old fuck who couldn't see they way society was headed, and know that you know better.
But fine, let's play the 'intent' game for a minute. Want to claim 'intent' to keep your guns? Fine, but women can no longer vote. Oh, snap! That was intent too! Do you own a house? If not, you can't vote either— intent got us again! I won't even go into who should be counted as three-fifths of a person; the point is, 'intent' is a garbage argument intended to draw on patriotic sentiment and goad people into doing/believing things, as if Jefferson and Hamilton having believed something makes it automatically worth believing. Fuck those old bastards— they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
So, with my IBM firmly in Orange and red spots floating in front of my eyes (grueling, grueling dump, I tell you), I read the last few paragraphs of the "article", wherein the author attacked 'revisionist' courts that had the audacity to claim grandpa shouldn't own an ak-47 because he's not part of a well-regulated militia. Suddenly, I had this blinding flash of insight that went:
BULLSHIT ALERT RED! BULLSHIT ALERT RED!
Someone should get this "author" a dictionary, because he/she has forgotten what 'revisionist' means in this country, which is to take the established legal stand on an issue (usually based on the constitution) and revise it. By disallowing gun ownership for those not in well-regulated militias, these courts are actually being constructionist courts. Another thing: courts can only be revisionist in this sense when revising previously established constitutional issues. Pay attention— on topics like stem-cell research and gay marriage, conservative pundits love to spew the phrase 'revisionist', although neither of those topics was addressed in the constitution, and therefore never had an established legal status to be revised. Only in retrospect have people tried to insert an asinine phrase like 'two dicks and no chicks = bad' into the constitution and pretend it was there all along.
It's funny to me that what American Rifleman actually wants is one of those crazy, activist, revisionist, non-constructionist courts to say "anyone can own any gun no matter what" even though that is clearly not what the Second Amendment states. What's funnier is that American Rifleman won't admit this, instead skewing reality to make it appear as if those dirty liberals are singeing the constitution yet again. Of course this "author" knows what 'revisionist' means, and knows the word is being used incorrectly, and so does the "editor" of this "magazine". But revisionist has become such a liberal-associated smear that they used it anyway, rendering their own argument about as strong as a wall made of Styrofoam and mortared with Cheez Whiz.
What I don't understand, and maybe someone can help me with this, is: why is revisionism is such a feared doctrine? Because it was originally associated with Marxian socialism? Because it puts the focus on evolutionary policy making (they're trying to say Jefferson was a monkey!)? Because change is scary?
Was it not a crazy revisionist court that said black people should be allowed to drink out of any water fountain? Or that women should be allowed to vote? Most of the social changes which have made this country more open and more equal were facilitated, if not initiated, by 'revisionist' courts. Sodomy should not be illegal, nor should miscegenation, yet without a court to strike down various old and outdated laws, revising our understanding of right and wrong, I could face jail time for marrying a Mexican, or making love to her poop chute.
It seems to me that revisionism is one of the biggest strengths of our legal system. It means that we are not strictly bound to the desires and minutiae of a handful of old, wealthy, white men with roughly 9th grade educations who could never have foreseen what America would look like in 200 years. It means that we have a strong frame and we hang the particular clothing of our society on it, just as previous generations did, and just as future generations will.
This has kept America progressing socially at a reasonable clip without the need for revolutions every 50 or 60 years to get things done. Remember: we are one of the few countries on Earth to not have witnessed a major internal threat to our political system in almost 150 years, precisely because of the fluidity of our system— because the founding fathers were geniuses in that they gave us something to build on, not something to live under.
All I know is that when my bullshit alert hits red, it's time put the "publication" down, wipe, and go play some World of Warcraft—at least that make-believe is more silly and fun than aggravating and hypocritical.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Three reasons to consider Canada
Reason #1:
Vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin said, and I quote, "Our national leaders are sending them [our soldiers] out on a task that is from God...That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Apparently, the crazy Muslims that claimed America is starting a religious war with them are not so crazy. Welcome back to the use of God's name to justify killing people. Oh wait. We never stopped. Sorry. I thought maybe we had learned that we shouldn't do that. My bad. The terrorists used it to justify terror and now we're using it to justify our actions. Anyone else see the stupidity in that? Apparently, God is somehow pro-American and pro-war. Last time I read it, the Bible said neither of those things. In fact, I'm pretty sure it said (paraphrased) "turn the other cheek", "what you do to the meekest you do to me", and "love your neighbor even if he wrongs you". If I needed one reason to not vote for McCain, this would be a good one. Religious superiority and borderline fanatacism and zealotry have no place in a country that ostensibly practices "freedom of religion". In no way did God ever come down and say to America "you're special, now show the rest of the world, by force of necessary". Lincoln said it best: "The question is not is God on our side, but rather are we on God's side?" I think even a cursory glance at our actions compared to our Biblical conception of God will answer that question. If not then you're not paying close enough attention.
Reason #2:
Cheney decided to kick in with his opinion and declared the Russian war against Georgia as "illegitimate". Meanwhile, he's defending our own illegitimate actions in Iraq. By illegitimate, both myself and Cheney are referring to unilateral, non-international military occupations of foreign powers. Once again, I shake my head and wonder why it's acceptable in politics and in elected officials to take completely opposite stances on the same issue and be praised for it. When your approval ratings actually reach single digits, you shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of Washington D.C.
Reason #3:
Karl Rove. Enough said, but I've got more. Karl spent weeks hammering Barack's list of vice presidential candidates as too inexperienced and used the argument that one of them was "only the governor of the 101st largest city in the U.S." as a reason to disqualify him from the vice presidency. Tuesday, Rove had the audacity to claim that Palin's leadership of the 2nd largest city in Alaska qualified her to run the U.S., both on the domestic and international front, in event of the president's inability to do so. Just a fun fact: the second largest city in Alaska has a population of ~9,780 people. So leading a city of 10,000 provides more experience than a city of roughly 202,000? Give me a fucking break. It doesn't matter anyway because she was mayor of the 9th largest city in Alaska, not the 2nd largest. I'm not saying she's not qualified because it was only 10,000 people. I'm just saying that if city size is going to be your barometer, then maybe the former mayor of the 1st largest city in Alaska would have been a better choice. Population, city growth, economy and economic growth, level of public services...all these things are more important that "2nd largest" or "101st largest". By Rove's logic, we should elect the leader of Sitka, Alaska because it has more land area than New York City (even though New York has a major financial sector and an international presence). These types of half-truths and logical fallacies should be considered unethical, particularly amongst people that know better but are more interested in maintaining control than in being honest. You can make plenty of good arguments about why Palin is a good candidate without setting up straw-man arguments- she was elected governor of Alaska (population 670,000) after all. This type of behavior suggests that your candidate is too weak to stand up to scrutiny of her voting record and political stances. But hell, Karl Rove has made a career out of public bull-shitting. Maybe this is what the country deserves for not calling our public figures on their behavior.
That's all for now. The next post will examine Sarah Palin in more depth, particularly her stances on issues beyond abortion and gun control (which you won't get from the media). I'm going to do this will all four candidates. Mostly for my own education. But also in the hopes of adding something to the debate amongst the five people that bother to read this. You can't have a good election or political discussion without at least a basic knowledge of where the candidates stand on many issues, not just the hot button topics on Fox News and MSNBC.
Vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin said, and I quote, "Our national leaders are sending them [our soldiers] out on a task that is from God...That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Apparently, the crazy Muslims that claimed America is starting a religious war with them are not so crazy. Welcome back to the use of God's name to justify killing people. Oh wait. We never stopped. Sorry. I thought maybe we had learned that we shouldn't do that. My bad. The terrorists used it to justify terror and now we're using it to justify our actions. Anyone else see the stupidity in that? Apparently, God is somehow pro-American and pro-war. Last time I read it, the Bible said neither of those things. In fact, I'm pretty sure it said (paraphrased) "turn the other cheek", "what you do to the meekest you do to me", and "love your neighbor even if he wrongs you". If I needed one reason to not vote for McCain, this would be a good one. Religious superiority and borderline fanatacism and zealotry have no place in a country that ostensibly practices "freedom of religion". In no way did God ever come down and say to America "you're special, now show the rest of the world, by force of necessary". Lincoln said it best: "The question is not is God on our side, but rather are we on God's side?" I think even a cursory glance at our actions compared to our Biblical conception of God will answer that question. If not then you're not paying close enough attention.
Reason #2:
Cheney decided to kick in with his opinion and declared the Russian war against Georgia as "illegitimate". Meanwhile, he's defending our own illegitimate actions in Iraq. By illegitimate, both myself and Cheney are referring to unilateral, non-international military occupations of foreign powers. Once again, I shake my head and wonder why it's acceptable in politics and in elected officials to take completely opposite stances on the same issue and be praised for it. When your approval ratings actually reach single digits, you shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of Washington D.C.
Reason #3:
Karl Rove. Enough said, but I've got more. Karl spent weeks hammering Barack's list of vice presidential candidates as too inexperienced and used the argument that one of them was "only the governor of the 101st largest city in the U.S." as a reason to disqualify him from the vice presidency. Tuesday, Rove had the audacity to claim that Palin's leadership of the 2nd largest city in Alaska qualified her to run the U.S., both on the domestic and international front, in event of the president's inability to do so. Just a fun fact: the second largest city in Alaska has a population of ~9,780 people. So leading a city of 10,000 provides more experience than a city of roughly 202,000? Give me a fucking break. It doesn't matter anyway because she was mayor of the 9th largest city in Alaska, not the 2nd largest. I'm not saying she's not qualified because it was only 10,000 people. I'm just saying that if city size is going to be your barometer, then maybe the former mayor of the 1st largest city in Alaska would have been a better choice. Population, city growth, economy and economic growth, level of public services...all these things are more important that "2nd largest" or "101st largest". By Rove's logic, we should elect the leader of Sitka, Alaska because it has more land area than New York City (even though New York has a major financial sector and an international presence). These types of half-truths and logical fallacies should be considered unethical, particularly amongst people that know better but are more interested in maintaining control than in being honest. You can make plenty of good arguments about why Palin is a good candidate without setting up straw-man arguments- she was elected governor of Alaska (population 670,000) after all. This type of behavior suggests that your candidate is too weak to stand up to scrutiny of her voting record and political stances. But hell, Karl Rove has made a career out of public bull-shitting. Maybe this is what the country deserves for not calling our public figures on their behavior.
That's all for now. The next post will examine Sarah Palin in more depth, particularly her stances on issues beyond abortion and gun control (which you won't get from the media). I'm going to do this will all four candidates. Mostly for my own education. But also in the hopes of adding something to the debate amongst the five people that bother to read this. You can't have a good election or political discussion without at least a basic knowledge of where the candidates stand on many issues, not just the hot button topics on Fox News and MSNBC.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Maybe a little clarification is in order
The number of points of view possible on any issue is quite incredible. My last post really stirred up a hornets nest. I've appended my two cents to the comments section of the last post, so I won't repeat myself here. This is what American debate is all about- getting the best input from the most people. And that's why I love it. Some of the best input comes from the people living under the system. You need the political experts, the scientists, the economists. You need the dry data and the people to help interpret it. But most of all, you need to know what people are thinking, how they got to that point, and where they want to go. You can't make everyone happy, but you can at least try to understand why they feel the way they do. I hope this post will clear up any misconceptions that may be floating around about my opinion of the U.S.
I don't typically say a lot of good stuff about the U.S. It's not that I'm anti-U.S. or that I hate our country. It's not that the U.S. doesn't do great things or have great people. I just don't need a flag or a lapel pin or a sporting event to make me feel American. I've never needed to belong to something bigger than myself. Being alive is enough for me. I've never felt the need to be in a group. I'm fairly private and prefer spending my time alone with my thoughts and musings. I'm not religious, I don't go to many parties or spend time with large groups of people. I guess I just don't have a group mentality. I prefer a few hard and fast friends around a desert campfire. On top of that, I feel like we already have enough U.S. cheerleaders.
But all that doesn't mean that I don't care about the U.S. I think the ultimate problem is that I see all the great things we could be. And I feel that our genius and talent and leadership are being wasted on more frivolous concerns. Don't misunderstand me- those concerns are important and need to be addressed. But they have come to overshadow the greater picture of what America can be. I guess what I really want is for people to examine issues from the point of view of those outside the nation, not just from pro-American points. I want people to think about how our decisions and our way of life influence the rest of the world. America should be worldly and remember that we are part of a global community. Sometimes, we have to take a little less in order to give a little more to the rest. To me, that's not un-American. Rather, that's what a leader does. A leader stands up and takes responsibility for their actions, treats fairly and in good faith, recognizes and acknowledges when they have made a mistake, and always pushes those around them to be their best. Once you have shown the ability to lead, others will come to you and rely on your leadership.
I want this nation to chart a course that maintains the best of humankind. I want us to be the leaders in ethics. I want to maintain the moral high ground. Above all, I want us to lead by example. I want us to maintain the dignity of people. These are goals that may well be unachievable. But if we don't try to always better ourselves, how can we ask others to do so? I was personally offended by a billboard here in Washington. It says "This is a great nation. Why change?" The truth is, this is a great nation. But it can be better. It can be more just, more caring, and wiser without sacrificing the good things it already has. If you're not willing to change, then you relegate yourself the dustbin of history, a landscape littered with great nations and people that could not change and became obsolete. If you're not willing to change, you've really missed one of the more important lessons of life. Nations must evolve just like humans and animals. If we always accept the status quo we will never be any better than this.
Let me be very clear- I would never want to live anywhere else. We enjoy a high degree of freedom, privacy, and opportunity that very few others could ever hope for. I also realize, if I had been born into a different system, I would defend that system. But I like ours and so I'll keep it.
My contribution to the U.S., my patriotism, is to point out and, hopefully, to remedy it's flaws. I want us to be a world leader. I want our own actions to match our rhetoric. I want our leadership to be honestly earned, not taken with weapons. I want us to begin attacking the roots of social, political, and economic problems, not just treating the weeds. We must remain true to ourselves and to humanity. But we must always remember that we are but one nation in a global community. While we may be called upon to lead, we must always be willing to listen, to adapt, and, perhaps most importantly, to acknowledge when we are not in the best position to lead and step aside for the greater good.
I don't typically say a lot of good stuff about the U.S. It's not that I'm anti-U.S. or that I hate our country. It's not that the U.S. doesn't do great things or have great people. I just don't need a flag or a lapel pin or a sporting event to make me feel American. I've never needed to belong to something bigger than myself. Being alive is enough for me. I've never felt the need to be in a group. I'm fairly private and prefer spending my time alone with my thoughts and musings. I'm not religious, I don't go to many parties or spend time with large groups of people. I guess I just don't have a group mentality. I prefer a few hard and fast friends around a desert campfire. On top of that, I feel like we already have enough U.S. cheerleaders.
But all that doesn't mean that I don't care about the U.S. I think the ultimate problem is that I see all the great things we could be. And I feel that our genius and talent and leadership are being wasted on more frivolous concerns. Don't misunderstand me- those concerns are important and need to be addressed. But they have come to overshadow the greater picture of what America can be. I guess what I really want is for people to examine issues from the point of view of those outside the nation, not just from pro-American points. I want people to think about how our decisions and our way of life influence the rest of the world. America should be worldly and remember that we are part of a global community. Sometimes, we have to take a little less in order to give a little more to the rest. To me, that's not un-American. Rather, that's what a leader does. A leader stands up and takes responsibility for their actions, treats fairly and in good faith, recognizes and acknowledges when they have made a mistake, and always pushes those around them to be their best. Once you have shown the ability to lead, others will come to you and rely on your leadership.
I want this nation to chart a course that maintains the best of humankind. I want us to be the leaders in ethics. I want to maintain the moral high ground. Above all, I want us to lead by example. I want us to maintain the dignity of people. These are goals that may well be unachievable. But if we don't try to always better ourselves, how can we ask others to do so? I was personally offended by a billboard here in Washington. It says "This is a great nation. Why change?" The truth is, this is a great nation. But it can be better. It can be more just, more caring, and wiser without sacrificing the good things it already has. If you're not willing to change, then you relegate yourself the dustbin of history, a landscape littered with great nations and people that could not change and became obsolete. If you're not willing to change, you've really missed one of the more important lessons of life. Nations must evolve just like humans and animals. If we always accept the status quo we will never be any better than this.
Let me be very clear- I would never want to live anywhere else. We enjoy a high degree of freedom, privacy, and opportunity that very few others could ever hope for. I also realize, if I had been born into a different system, I would defend that system. But I like ours and so I'll keep it.
My contribution to the U.S., my patriotism, is to point out and, hopefully, to remedy it's flaws. I want us to be a world leader. I want our own actions to match our rhetoric. I want our leadership to be honestly earned, not taken with weapons. I want us to begin attacking the roots of social, political, and economic problems, not just treating the weeds. We must remain true to ourselves and to humanity. But we must always remember that we are but one nation in a global community. While we may be called upon to lead, we must always be willing to listen, to adapt, and, perhaps most importantly, to acknowledge when we are not in the best position to lead and step aside for the greater good.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Object Lessons
Ok...I shouldn’t even need to respond to this. I just wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention. Bush had the unmitigated gall to talk about Russia’s handling of Georgia (and I quote): "This violence is unacceptable...[the U.S. expresses] grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and...[the] bombing outside of South Ossetia...My administration has been engaged with both sides in this, trying to get a cease-fire...There needs to be an international mediation." Really? Really? You want to talk about disproportionate? How about dropping daisy-cutters and cluster munitions on Iraq which had AK47’s and RPGs? How about killing more than 100,000 civilians to avenge almost 4,000 at the WTC (which Iraq had exactly zero to do with anyway)? Seven years of unilateral decisions, thumbing your nose at the international community, and you think they should get involved now it doesn’t involved the U.S? All I can say is if I believed in hell you’d be somewhere in the top five for people that can go there first. No one can possibly be this stupid, naive, and hypocritical. But there you have it. Anybody that wants to defend these kinds of condemnations while not acknowledging our own complicity can suck it.
Item #2: why is it that every time the Olympics come on we have to have a big patriotic smoke-blowing contest? The Olympics are about athleticism, personal and team competition, and mild hetero- and homo- eroticism. But every time an international competition starts, it turns into a big monstrosity that people use to justify how great we are because we beat another country at synchronized swimming or power walking (neither of which, by the way, I would ever consider a sport- just a hobby that is difficult. But that’s a different story). It doesn’t make any sense. Maybe people need this kind of "glory" for their self-esteem. It’s a powerful symbol I guess and can carry a deeper meaning. I never understood why people needed symbols, but I can’t deny the power they have. But have you ever wondered why the winners are almost always countries you’ve heard of? It’s because they have enough disposable income to pump into the training. They can pay their athletes. You rarely see Uganda or Slovenia win anything.
I just think it’s a travesty that we hold our athletes and celebrities in such high regard that what should be a personal triumph for them becomes something they are compelled to share with America just because they happen to be citizens there. Should you have pride in your country? Yes- when it does things worth being proud of. These athletes make me feel respect for the discipline it takes to be that good. They make me cringe with the thought of working that hard. But fielding a team of guys who’ve spent years throwing a clay disc down a field doesn’t really make me feel like singing The Star Spangled Banner (which you get bonus points for if you can name who wrote it without looking it up). You can be proud of the athletes, you can even be proud that they are from America and that they represent the best athletics that we have to offer. But don’t use it as a reason to spout xenophobic nonsense or to explain why one entire country or citizenry is better or worse than another. That’s just plain stupid.
Also, take that French swimming team anchorman (notice I’ve targeted the fool responsible, not the entire French nation). I watched the men’s 4x100m relay, which was possibly the best race I’ve ever watched at a sporting event. You should all go find a video and watch it. The anchorman said they came specifically to "smash" the American’s. Instead, they were handed a priceless defeat and the look on their faces was worth staying up until two in the morning to see. Hopefully anyone watching learned a valuable lesson about opening their mouth before the race was won. I doubt it. Instead, they probably learned that America is "better" at swimming fast than France. But it was a good object lesson nevertheless.
Item #2: why is it that every time the Olympics come on we have to have a big patriotic smoke-blowing contest? The Olympics are about athleticism, personal and team competition, and mild hetero- and homo- eroticism. But every time an international competition starts, it turns into a big monstrosity that people use to justify how great we are because we beat another country at synchronized swimming or power walking (neither of which, by the way, I would ever consider a sport- just a hobby that is difficult. But that’s a different story). It doesn’t make any sense. Maybe people need this kind of "glory" for their self-esteem. It’s a powerful symbol I guess and can carry a deeper meaning. I never understood why people needed symbols, but I can’t deny the power they have. But have you ever wondered why the winners are almost always countries you’ve heard of? It’s because they have enough disposable income to pump into the training. They can pay their athletes. You rarely see Uganda or Slovenia win anything.
I just think it’s a travesty that we hold our athletes and celebrities in such high regard that what should be a personal triumph for them becomes something they are compelled to share with America just because they happen to be citizens there. Should you have pride in your country? Yes- when it does things worth being proud of. These athletes make me feel respect for the discipline it takes to be that good. They make me cringe with the thought of working that hard. But fielding a team of guys who’ve spent years throwing a clay disc down a field doesn’t really make me feel like singing The Star Spangled Banner (which you get bonus points for if you can name who wrote it without looking it up). You can be proud of the athletes, you can even be proud that they are from America and that they represent the best athletics that we have to offer. But don’t use it as a reason to spout xenophobic nonsense or to explain why one entire country or citizenry is better or worse than another. That’s just plain stupid.
Also, take that French swimming team anchorman (notice I’ve targeted the fool responsible, not the entire French nation). I watched the men’s 4x100m relay, which was possibly the best race I’ve ever watched at a sporting event. You should all go find a video and watch it. The anchorman said they came specifically to "smash" the American’s. Instead, they were handed a priceless defeat and the look on their faces was worth staying up until two in the morning to see. Hopefully anyone watching learned a valuable lesson about opening their mouth before the race was won. I doubt it. Instead, they probably learned that America is "better" at swimming fast than France. But it was a good object lesson nevertheless.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Continuing the rest of the story
This question was too good to put in the comments. Jack wrote in with a comment regarding the previous post: "Your blog definitely makes one think. Playing Devil's advocate, ever since OJ's trial I do not have a lot of confidence in our civilian criminal justice system either. With that in mind, what would you consider a fair trial?"
Let me start by saying that's about the best compliment I've had. I like to hope that people will read this and think about things and not just give knee-jerk reactions. While it may not change their opinion, maybe it will at least give them something to expand their understanding of the situation.
So what would constitute a fair trial for the prisoners at Gitmo and other military prisons? Obviously the horrendous and public nature of the charges and crime means no one could possibly give these people an impartial trial. Both the military and civilian juries would be biased and, in either case, are not really a jury of peers. My solution is this: leave the decision to the professionals. There are people who, in theory, must practice being as unbiased as possible all day, who understand the law better than nearly anyone else, and who are well versed in logic, rhetoric, and the rules of evidence. They are called judges. In this case, I suggest we dispense with a jury altogether and turn over the decision to a panel of judges.
These judges would be pulled from both civilian and military courts. Because of the nature of the crime and the nature of the evidence ("top secret" and what-not) there should be a good number of judges (say 8-10). An even number of judges guarantees equal representation of civil and military courts. Judges would be chosen from a pool with experience in cases involving sensitive information. The actual selection would be at random from this pool to ensure that the panel is not packed with government cronies or friends of the defense or prosecution.
A majority vote would be required for conviction. In the event of a tied vote, an acquittal would be declared and a new panel of judges would be selected. Two acquittals would be equivalent to a not-guilty vote, since that would mean there is not enough evidence to reach a full conviction in a reasonable amount of time.
The defendant's lawyers should have access to all of the evidence against the defendant. The defense should also be allowed to question the evidence as to its sources, methods of obtainment, accuracy, and verifiability. Without these provision for the defense, the trial is a joke and a mockery with no real interest in justice, only conviction and punishment. Finally, to ensure fairness, the maximum amount of evidence possible should be made public. This way, the public can have an informed view of the proceedings and can reach reasonable conclusions rather than reading rampant speculation and fueling the gossip mill. With these protections in place, I think that's about the most equitable situation we can offer. We must remember that these people are innocent until we can prove they are guilty and we must not let the emotional need for punishment and revenge over-rule our ethical responsibility to provide a fair day in court even if the verdict is not-guilty.
Regarding the OJ trial, my opinion is that the whole thing was injustice of the highest order. Based on the evidence I saw, the jury reached a verdict that was incomprehensible to those of us paying attention. That being said, the point of the jury system is to allow the public to participate in the justice system, to weigh the evidence presented, and to decide whether the government (the judiciary in this case) has made a good case for punishment. In this instance they decided that reasonable doubt over-ruled the physical evidence. And as far as I am aware, there was no jury tampering or inappropriate behavior. So even though I hate the decision, the system worked exactly like it was supposed to. We can't be upset when the system does its job even if we don't agree with the outcome. There are horrific examples in the U.S. of guilty parties getting off and of innocent people getting punished. No system is perfect, but we do our best to avoid these types of outcomes. Be that as it may, that dude was guilty as fuck and until someone can bring better evidence to light than some racial slander, that's my side of the story.
A few closing remarks- the judicial system in this country has its problems, but I would have to say that overall it could be much, much worse. I think we have a pretty good system in place and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else for a trial. My biggest problems are the obvious inequalities regarding race. Black men are convicted more often, punished more harshly, and put on death row more frequently than white men. These are obvious biases in the system and need to be rectified immediately. But I also firmly believe that if we want other nations to adopt what we consider to be a fair, impartial, democratic system, we have to use that system on everyone. We can't treat our citizens with one system and have another for foreigners or "war criminals" that we believe have wronged us. If we do, we immediately lose our moral standing and become big fat hypocrites. Don't think the rest of world doesn't see that.
We are in a tough position. We use corporal punishment in cases like this. Much of the rest of the world doesn't. So if we convict these people and execute them, we may do ourselves even more harm in the international community. The call for blood may need to be tempered by the fact that we need the global community to believe we have provided a fair trial to those accused of these heinous acts. Otherwise, they will just cite this as another case of American unilateral action and hegemony.
Finally, I think that treating these people as "war criminals" only adds to their mystique, their martyrdom, and their symbolism to other terrorists. If we treated them as common criminals in civilian courts, much of their power could be thwarted. As of now, they are raised up as symbols of evil and given a prestige they most certainly don't deserve. We could make a strong statement by treating them as the thugs they are rather than reinforcing the idea that they are somehow more dangerous than other murderers. And, if it turns out that we have arrested and tried people that were not, in fact, connected with the attacks (which we most probably have given the rather indiscriminate nature in which they were sometimes rounded up) then we need to own up to that and show the world that we will not incarcerate innocent people. We've already done irreparable damage by locking these people away for years with no formal charges, torturing them, and then denying we were doing it. We need to take back the moral high ground, return the innocent to their families, punish the perpetrators, and show the world that our justice system works. Lead by example, not by fiat.
Let me start by saying that's about the best compliment I've had. I like to hope that people will read this and think about things and not just give knee-jerk reactions. While it may not change their opinion, maybe it will at least give them something to expand their understanding of the situation.
So what would constitute a fair trial for the prisoners at Gitmo and other military prisons? Obviously the horrendous and public nature of the charges and crime means no one could possibly give these people an impartial trial. Both the military and civilian juries would be biased and, in either case, are not really a jury of peers. My solution is this: leave the decision to the professionals. There are people who, in theory, must practice being as unbiased as possible all day, who understand the law better than nearly anyone else, and who are well versed in logic, rhetoric, and the rules of evidence. They are called judges. In this case, I suggest we dispense with a jury altogether and turn over the decision to a panel of judges.
These judges would be pulled from both civilian and military courts. Because of the nature of the crime and the nature of the evidence ("top secret" and what-not) there should be a good number of judges (say 8-10). An even number of judges guarantees equal representation of civil and military courts. Judges would be chosen from a pool with experience in cases involving sensitive information. The actual selection would be at random from this pool to ensure that the panel is not packed with government cronies or friends of the defense or prosecution.
A majority vote would be required for conviction. In the event of a tied vote, an acquittal would be declared and a new panel of judges would be selected. Two acquittals would be equivalent to a not-guilty vote, since that would mean there is not enough evidence to reach a full conviction in a reasonable amount of time.
The defendant's lawyers should have access to all of the evidence against the defendant. The defense should also be allowed to question the evidence as to its sources, methods of obtainment, accuracy, and verifiability. Without these provision for the defense, the trial is a joke and a mockery with no real interest in justice, only conviction and punishment. Finally, to ensure fairness, the maximum amount of evidence possible should be made public. This way, the public can have an informed view of the proceedings and can reach reasonable conclusions rather than reading rampant speculation and fueling the gossip mill. With these protections in place, I think that's about the most equitable situation we can offer. We must remember that these people are innocent until we can prove they are guilty and we must not let the emotional need for punishment and revenge over-rule our ethical responsibility to provide a fair day in court even if the verdict is not-guilty.
Regarding the OJ trial, my opinion is that the whole thing was injustice of the highest order. Based on the evidence I saw, the jury reached a verdict that was incomprehensible to those of us paying attention. That being said, the point of the jury system is to allow the public to participate in the justice system, to weigh the evidence presented, and to decide whether the government (the judiciary in this case) has made a good case for punishment. In this instance they decided that reasonable doubt over-ruled the physical evidence. And as far as I am aware, there was no jury tampering or inappropriate behavior. So even though I hate the decision, the system worked exactly like it was supposed to. We can't be upset when the system does its job even if we don't agree with the outcome. There are horrific examples in the U.S. of guilty parties getting off and of innocent people getting punished. No system is perfect, but we do our best to avoid these types of outcomes. Be that as it may, that dude was guilty as fuck and until someone can bring better evidence to light than some racial slander, that's my side of the story.
A few closing remarks- the judicial system in this country has its problems, but I would have to say that overall it could be much, much worse. I think we have a pretty good system in place and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else for a trial. My biggest problems are the obvious inequalities regarding race. Black men are convicted more often, punished more harshly, and put on death row more frequently than white men. These are obvious biases in the system and need to be rectified immediately. But I also firmly believe that if we want other nations to adopt what we consider to be a fair, impartial, democratic system, we have to use that system on everyone. We can't treat our citizens with one system and have another for foreigners or "war criminals" that we believe have wronged us. If we do, we immediately lose our moral standing and become big fat hypocrites. Don't think the rest of world doesn't see that.
We are in a tough position. We use corporal punishment in cases like this. Much of the rest of the world doesn't. So if we convict these people and execute them, we may do ourselves even more harm in the international community. The call for blood may need to be tempered by the fact that we need the global community to believe we have provided a fair trial to those accused of these heinous acts. Otherwise, they will just cite this as another case of American unilateral action and hegemony.
Finally, I think that treating these people as "war criminals" only adds to their mystique, their martyrdom, and their symbolism to other terrorists. If we treated them as common criminals in civilian courts, much of their power could be thwarted. As of now, they are raised up as symbols of evil and given a prestige they most certainly don't deserve. We could make a strong statement by treating them as the thugs they are rather than reinforcing the idea that they are somehow more dangerous than other murderers. And, if it turns out that we have arrested and tried people that were not, in fact, connected with the attacks (which we most probably have given the rather indiscriminate nature in which they were sometimes rounded up) then we need to own up to that and show the world that we will not incarcerate innocent people. We've already done irreparable damage by locking these people away for years with no formal charges, torturing them, and then denying we were doing it. We need to take back the moral high ground, return the innocent to their families, punish the perpetrators, and show the world that our justice system works. Lead by example, not by fiat.
And now...the rest of the story
The first alleged criminal to go on trial for "war crimes" is bin Laden's chauffeur. There has been a lot of talk about how a war crimes trial in a military court is different than a trial in a normal civilian court. The popular answer among government mouthpieces is "there would really be no noticeable difference." Now let's examine the reality of the situation.
For starters, in the real world a defendant is tried by a jury of his or her peers. In this case, that jury will consist exclusively of military personnel. How, exactly, is that a jury of his peers? A more disturbing idea is that these military people have a terribly biased view of the situation. To be fair, no one in the U.S. (or probably the world) could possibly give any of these people a fair trial because of their own biases and the nature of the allegations. But this seems patently ridiculous that the service men and women who are involved in the war, who have been hammered day in and day out with messages of anti-terrorism, and who have friends that have been killed in "terrorist" acts are going to be the ones to judge him.
Next, in the real world, a defendant is considered innocent unless the evidence can prove he is not. Thus, the onus is on the prosecution to prove culpability. In this case it's exactly reversed. The onus has been put on the defendant to prove his innocence and the evidence is considered absolute, a priori truth. There is very little that the defending lawyers can do to question such evidence because it is already accepted as absolute and infallible. So we have implemented a guilty until proven innocent policy.
In a normal trial, the defendant has complete access to the evidence being used against him and the methods used to gather it. In this case, because of the "sensitive", "secret", or "national security" nature of the evidence, equal access to information is not necessarily guaranteed. This crap wouldn't fly in a civilian court and it shouldn't be allowed to fly here.
So don't let anyone fool you. These trials are very different than civilian trials. Right now the cards appear stacked in the government's favor. The one good thing so far is that the presiding judge has ruled that evidence gained by torture or coercion will not be allowed. This farce of a trial should be far more concerning to the general U.S. populace than it is. If we can do it to foreigners, how long is it before similar measures are used in the name of security on American citizens? I'm not saying it will become the method du jure for civilian courts, but abuse of government and judicial power inevitably turns on the citizens it was initially supposed to protect. History is full of examples and there is nothing that suggests this situation is any different. Bringing the perpetrators of murderous acts to justice is a laudable goal but not at the expense of our ethics. If our ethical behavior and sense of fair-play is consumed in the pursuit of actual or supposed justice, we only become the thing we seek to destroy. We become the terrorists. I wouldn't say we're quite there yet, but we're really pushing the boundaries and walking headlong into that blurry gray fog where the ends always justify the means.
For starters, in the real world a defendant is tried by a jury of his or her peers. In this case, that jury will consist exclusively of military personnel. How, exactly, is that a jury of his peers? A more disturbing idea is that these military people have a terribly biased view of the situation. To be fair, no one in the U.S. (or probably the world) could possibly give any of these people a fair trial because of their own biases and the nature of the allegations. But this seems patently ridiculous that the service men and women who are involved in the war, who have been hammered day in and day out with messages of anti-terrorism, and who have friends that have been killed in "terrorist" acts are going to be the ones to judge him.
Next, in the real world, a defendant is considered innocent unless the evidence can prove he is not. Thus, the onus is on the prosecution to prove culpability. In this case it's exactly reversed. The onus has been put on the defendant to prove his innocence and the evidence is considered absolute, a priori truth. There is very little that the defending lawyers can do to question such evidence because it is already accepted as absolute and infallible. So we have implemented a guilty until proven innocent policy.
In a normal trial, the defendant has complete access to the evidence being used against him and the methods used to gather it. In this case, because of the "sensitive", "secret", or "national security" nature of the evidence, equal access to information is not necessarily guaranteed. This crap wouldn't fly in a civilian court and it shouldn't be allowed to fly here.
So don't let anyone fool you. These trials are very different than civilian trials. Right now the cards appear stacked in the government's favor. The one good thing so far is that the presiding judge has ruled that evidence gained by torture or coercion will not be allowed. This farce of a trial should be far more concerning to the general U.S. populace than it is. If we can do it to foreigners, how long is it before similar measures are used in the name of security on American citizens? I'm not saying it will become the method du jure for civilian courts, but abuse of government and judicial power inevitably turns on the citizens it was initially supposed to protect. History is full of examples and there is nothing that suggests this situation is any different. Bringing the perpetrators of murderous acts to justice is a laudable goal but not at the expense of our ethics. If our ethical behavior and sense of fair-play is consumed in the pursuit of actual or supposed justice, we only become the thing we seek to destroy. We become the terrorists. I wouldn't say we're quite there yet, but we're really pushing the boundaries and walking headlong into that blurry gray fog where the ends always justify the means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)