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.
Monday, November 24, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)