Two Guys Chatting

Sunshine, Dog's Ass part ways

2005-10-17T03:44:00.000-04:00

From the Pew Research Center
President George W. Bush's poll numbers are going from bad to worse. His job approval rating has fallen to another new low, as has public satisfaction with national conditions, which now stands at just 29%

Here's the problem for GWB. The guns-gays-god crowd ain't but so big. Eventually even people under the GOP's "big tent" have realized that this administration is little more than than a bastion of feel-good stagecraft, borrow-and-spend liberalism, and rampant cronyism. The independents are long gone.

This administration has gotten a free pass on its missteps for years now, and if things keep up (vetoing the torture bill, Harriet "the greatest ever" Miers, etc.) the midterm elections will be nationalized, giving Democrats a legitimate chance to take back both houses of Congress.

The quacking sound you hear is coming from Pennsylvania Ave.

A little something to chew on today

2005-09-15T05:13:00.000-04:00

From the Washington Post

Writing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, F. Gregory Gause III said that a review of academic literature and statistics finds little evidence that democracy stops terrorism. Gause, a political science professor at the University of Vermont, noted that the State Department's records show that, between 2000 and 2003, India, the world's most populous democracy, had 203 terrorist attacks while, China, the world's most populous authoritarian state, had none. One study cited by Gause found that "most terrorist incidents occur in democracies and that generally both the victims and the perpetrators are citizens of democracies."

Maybe they were all rebuilding Trent Lott's house

2005-09-09T00:53:00.000-04:00

Defining My Husband

2005-09-08T15:24:00.000-04:00

According to wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, reactionary conservatives are defined as those "who want to roll back the changes created by modern liberalism in the second half of the Twentieth Century, especially in the areas of welfare and civil rights. Their political goals include an end to affirmative action, restrictions on immigration, and limitations on the rights of those accused of crimes." The link, for those of you who want to further research this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_North_America#Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Now, here is my challenge to those of you who would seek to define my husband's political ideology: I am offering a $25 Best Buy gift card to the person who can most readily and accurately define Eric's POV when it comes to politics.

The race is on. Cheers.

Get in closer, everyone. This picture is extremely important.

2005-09-08T04:55:00.000-04:00

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

...firefighters, several of whom are from Utah, were told to bring backpacks, sleeping bags, first-aid kits and Meals Ready to Eat. They were told to prepare for "austere conditions." Many of the came with awkward fire gear and expected to wade in floodwaters, sift through rubble and save lives.

Firefighters say they want to brave the heat, the debris-littered roads, the poisonous cottonmouth snakes and fire ants and travel into pockets of Louisiana where many people have yet to receive emergency aid.
But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.

There, in a nutshell, is why this administration gets caught flat-footed time and again in times of crisis. Consultants are way too concerned with the next backdrop, and people are dead and dying on a scale that defies imagination.

I'm not giving anyone high marks about Katrina here. This is a top-down failure of terrifying magnitude. However, the largest share of blame has to fall on the largest part of the government.

It's sickening looking back at just how quickly Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and all three branches of Florida's government responded to the Terry Schiavo "crisis" compared to the horrifying death, destruction, and neglect on the Gulf Coast.

See you in the private sector, jackass

2005-04-26T02:17:00.000-04:00

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rick Santorum has introduced legislation that would limit the information that the National Weather Service can provide to the public, in what the Pennsylvania Republican's aides describe as an effort to make sure that private weather companies -- particularly those in his home state -- can compete in the marketplace and retain jobs.

A spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson nailed it:

"For Pete's sake, no one suggests shutting down the post office because FedEx has a system of delivery."

What is it about this year that's making the Republicans overreach on issue after issue? Take your pick--Social Security, Terry Schiavo, lobbyist-funded trips, judicial nominees-the nuclear option-harassment of the judiciary in general, John Bolton, the consumption tax, and on and on. Fact is all of these issues are losers for Bush and his Congress.

I think 2006 will see a significant chipping away of the Republican majority. Santorum is ready for butter and jam, Rudy Giuliani won't take on Hillary, Conrad Burns is vulnerable.

The clock is ticking for Congress to get any of Bush's second term agenda going. Before you know it we'll have the summer recess, a drawn out budget battle, and then *poof*--election year paralysis. What can Republicans point to as a signature accomplishment so far? The bankruptcy bill? The right 30-second spot can make that bill a fat albatross--lots of people have shitty credit.

The Cult of Life

2005-03-21T16:42:00.000-05:00

President Bush:

...it is wise to always err on the side of life.

Hold on a second. How many people were executed by the state of Texas when George W. Bush was governor? Care to guess? By August of 1999 he signed death warrants on 93 people, not including one on the day of his inauguration as governor. Where was Congress then? Was there a zero percent chance that every one of those convictions was unjustly decided?

If Congress came back from vacation to argue about that in the middle of the night, I might believe that any of those demagogues could give a shit about Terri Schiavo.

It's very sweet that all these big, strong politicians came back from vacation to try and save one woman in tragic circumstances. But it's not their job.

I Know, Let's Ruin Alaska!

2005-03-17T01:51:00.000-05:00

Looks like ANWR finally gets what's coming to it. The Senate authorized oil drilling as part of a budget resolution in that little speck of heaven yesterday. Advocates say drilling will tamp down gasoline prices.

Here's why they're wrong. Say we go out there and start fouling up the refuge. What's to stop OPEC from decreasing production to match our increased output? I can't think of anything either.

Normal Americans won't see prices drop at the pump as a result. Oil companies will see a tidy spike in business, of course. In exchange we get a huge chunk of our natural resources spoiled.

Chances are oil's not going to get any cheaper anytime soon. China and India will see to that.

Contrary to what you may have heard, the real crisis facing this country in the next 20-40 years is a source of inexpensive, easily accessible energy. If our government wants to throw around a couple trillion on a gathering storm, how about a Manhattan Project-sized investment in practical alternative energy?

Ponder how much easier it would be to spread democracy in the Middle East, Russia, and South America if we didn't have to deal with all the bullshit that comes with buying oil from those fuckers. We're in a new kind of war, and we need the flexibility to deal harshly with the shit dictators and royal families without sweating a twist on the spigot.

Stank Hypocrisy

2005-03-14T03:13:00.000-05:00

The Project for Excellence in Journalism just published a study comparing the objectivity of cable news outlets. Howard Kurtz picked out a good tidbit:

In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.

Politicians like to use code words. Quota, culture of life, states rights, final solution, etc. I guess "liberal media" is supposed to mean "genuinely-nonpartisan-thus-not-sucking-the-collective-cock-of-the-right-wing media".

I wouldn't be upset about any of this if Fox would give up the pretense of being a legitimate news source. They could call themselves the "Fox Opinion Channel" and brainwash with impunity as far as I'm concerned.

Ridiculousness at the Washington Post

2005-03-08T09:45:00.000-05:00

I sent the below email to the Ombudsman of the Washington Post in response to the tripe he published on Sunday.

Mr. Gelter-
Allow me to dispense with the pleasantries and get right to the point: your column today was based on some of the worst logical reasoning I have ever been exposed to. Your analysis of why people are no longer reading the Washington Post is based on responses from.....people who are STILL reading the Washington Post. You took as gospel the notions of not only a self-selected sample, but one that exhibited the exact opposite characteristics and behaviors of the population you were looking understand better. This is the same type of reasoning that led to the oh-so-famous Chicago Daily Tribune debacle. What possible insight would these people have into the motives of those who have abandoned their Post subscriptions? That is akin to asking the Politburo why so many people were defecting to America.

If you approach the people who have in fact stopped reading the Post, I think you'll come to the exact opposite conclusion that you did in today's column. I suspect that readership is not down because of the Post's unwillingness to strongly challenge the Bush administration, but rather its unwillingness to acknowledge and reform the liberal bias that perpetuates every level of the organization. Led by Msrs. Milbank and VanDeHei (along with many, many others), all aspects of the Post, from news to style to editorial, are infected by not only a bias in news coverage and writing, but, as was confirmed by your column today, an inability to even recognize that it exists. The notion of a liberal bias among major media outlets has been repeated so many times that it is almost cliched. But, when institutions such as the Post do not reform once the problem has been exposed, the criticism must continue. It would stand to reason that the problem has gotten to the point where people are exercising their dollar vote and choosing to no longer monetarily support a publication that they feel is so biased against their point of view.

I myself have considered dropping my subscription on many occasions, but decided against it in deference to my Sunday morning ritual of coffee, the Post and the talk shows. However, rather than looking at it as a source for hard news, the Post offers little more than opposition research and access to George Will and Charles Krauthammer.

A more subtle logical inconsistency in your column today is the conclusion itself: namely that the massive drop-off in Post readership is attributed to a lenient handling of the current administration. Aside from that being factually wrong, it would require you to believe that the Post's readership is monolithically liberal and/or critical of the Bush administration: that those who were driven away from the Post were liberals disaffected by the coverage, and those who were responding to your article (e.g. the remaining readership) were just as politically inclined. Putting aside the fact that some of the readership decline can be attributed to the internet and cable news, it is logically inconsistent to assume that the Post's political/government coverage was so reprehensible as to drive tens, if not hundreds of thousands of readers away, while leaving a large enough population of like minded thinkers that many were compelled to tell you what the problem was. Wouldn't these people have been driven away by the quality of the Post's coverage as well? The apparent lack of political diversity in the responses you received should have indicated this, unless you a) believe that conservatives just don't read newspapers, b) suffer from Joyce Carol Oates syndrome, or c) don't feel that conservatives are the "target market" of your newspaper, any or all of which would reinforce the assertion that the Post contains a crippling liberal bias.

The problem, dear Brutus, is not your stars, but in yourselves.

Sincerely,
Eric Blankenstein

Rank hypocrisy

2005-03-04T08:55:00.000-05:00

I know that hypocrisy is nothing new to government, but what Senator Robert Byrd is doing these days is a little bit ridiculous.

Senator Byrd, all 87 years old of him, has taken the lead in decrying the threatened "nuclear option", where Republican's would amend Senate rules to limit debate on judicial nominees. For obvious reasons, the Democrats whole-heartedly oppose this.

Regardless of what side of the issue you fall on, Robert Byrd has absolutely no right to be objecting to this particular parliamentary tactic. While majority leader in the 70's, Robert Byrd used the threat of amending the Senate rules to limit debate on four separate occasions to extract painful concessions from the Republican minority. And, in case you were curious, Byrd's arguments against this tactic do NOT reference his threatened use of it. I find his comments equating the current Republican threats to tactics used by Hitler most ironic, since he was basically describing himself. Who knows, at 87 maybe he really can't remember his actions nearly 30 years ago.

By having Byrd be the spokesman against amending Senate rules, without fully disclosing his history with that particular tactic, will actually weaken the Democrats position on this issue once the history of the situation is widely reported.

There's hypocrisy, there's rank hypocrisy, and then there's the senior Senator from West Virginia.

Good, Better, or Evil...

2005-03-03T16:26:00.000-05:00

So, I am currently in the fourth week of the period in the Catholic religion called Lent. This is a time where us Catholics take time to look back on the past year. Give thanks, as we always do, and present a sacrifice in honor of Jesus dying for our sins. Basically, we sacrifice something now, because Jesus sacrificed his life for us. Some people give up candy or chocolate, others give up a favorite food, some give up alcohol, etc. For the last decade, give or take 2 or three years, my sacrifice has been to fast for 24 hours once a week. Usually, it's my last meal on Thursday until Friday and then I can eat seafood. So I have come to ask myself, does this yearly ritual make me a good Catholic? I am not an avid churchgoer, but I do pray faithfully. Personally, I do not believe that actual organized prayer is necessary for organized religion. The concept that being in the House of God makes your voice heard above others seems silly to me. I mean, God is omnipotent, so why does anyone need to be in a church, synagogue or mosque to prove his or her devotion? Not that I have an aversion to people partaking in this, it's just not a cornerstone in my own beliefs. But anyway, I think about the Lord often, and during Lent, I am literally thinking about my religion at a minimum 24 hours a week. So I do this 6 times a year, which breaks down to 144 hours a year. But the average Mass is between 45-60 minutes and if a person goes every week, that's 52 hours actually thinking about God, Jesus and your faith. Now, I'm not saying I'm better or worse than anyone else, but considering my sacrifice is actual effort as opposed to ritual, would people consider me a bad or good Catholic? The reason why I put this out there is because we joke around saying silly things like "you're a bad Jew if you eat pork." But really, who is to judge? How can any of us know what is really being a good religious person? And this is my problem with organized religion, no one knows jack. Shouldn't we all hold our beliefs the best we can and not pass judgment on others because they celebrate in a different way? And yes, this is an age old question, but it's deeper than that, because although people have been unacceptable of other religions for centuries, people are unacceptable of people within their own religion because they don't practice the same way. What is it about religion that turns fairly normal people into all knowing agents of God? Why can't people live by the universal creed of do as to others as you would want others to do unto you? How come that's not enough?

A pro-life decision I can live with

2005-03-01T11:01:00.000-05:00

From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

While it's disgusting that the decision came to 5-4, it's nice that we won't execute children anymore. It's almost like having a normal country.

Funny tidbit from the Bush/Putin news conference

2005-02-25T00:31:00.000-05:00

Vladimir Putin (from the Post):

"The leaders of the regions of the Russian Federation will not be appointed by the president," he said. They will be approved by "regional parliaments, which are directly chosen by secret ballot." Putin compared this to the Electoral College, which selects U.S. presidents. "It is not considered undemocratic, is it?"

I'm sure our president agrees with you, pal. Big time. Nice soul you've got, too.

What a puss

2005-02-24T03:14:00.000-05:00

Anyone catch this from MSNBC?

Dear Mr. Matthews,

I am so sorry to cancel your show. It was very gracious of you to allow me a chance to share my heart and regrets about recent events. It seems the better part of wisdom for me to forgo television for a time. It would only add to the distraction I have caused to the president’s important and historic work.

Contrary to a statement that I made to the New York Times, I have come to realize that personal relationships are more important than history. I am asking my attorney to direct any future proceeds from the book to charity and to find the best way to vet these tapes and get them back to the president to whom they belong. History can wait.

Thanks for your consideration,

Doug Wead

Give me a BREAK. Who spooked this guy? There was nothing on those tapes that was remotely interesting, let alone newsworthy. Everyone already knew George W. Bush was a coke-sniffin', hard-drinkin' fratty prick back in the day. It's not a big deal to discover that he smoked weed, too. It is a gateway drug after all.

Bush didn't say anything to this guy that's at all revealing or embarrassing, so what's the big deal? All you get from the tapes we've heard is that Bush is wound so tight that I bet nobody except maybe Laura Bush has any idea what's doing in his head.

An apolitical topic, and a sad one at that

2005-02-04T05:05:00.000-05:00

"Every Halloween, the trees are filled with underwear. Every spring, the toilets...explode."

Jim Vernon, AKA Dean Wormer, dead at 72.

Who Really Wants to Get Back on a Boat?

2005-02-01T13:43:00.000-05:00

So yesterday, I was having a convo with Eric concerning Blacks feeling as if the government, as a form of genocide created AIDS. Obviously, this is not the case, but it lead into a deeper topic about the positive effects of slavery on modern day Blacks. Now don’t get me wrong, the entire concept of slavery is immoral and I condemn all elements of it, but why on Earth would anyone feel as if being in Africa now is a bonus compared to living in the greatest nation on the planet. Clearly, I’m biased here, but seriously, many Blacks have some delusion that if Europeans never came to Africa to obtain slave labor, Africa would be some utopic society, where technology and wealth would be abundant. BS. Let’s look at the state of Africa now. Many people are still living within the confines of a tribe, sleeping in huts, hunting their food, not for sport but for survival. Clean water and pluming is non existent in many places and diseases such as AIDS are still a major epidemic there. On top of that, there are various civil wars and more corruption within the African governments than could ever happen here. And then we come to the most civilized country on that continent, South Africa, who until the early 90’s still supported apartheid. You may ask why I’m even commenting on this, because I can, well, more than that, because 1) I think this view that a few Blacks have is over powering the view that most others have that this country is a blessing to us. That the opportunities that have been presented to us are limitless, and really, there is no nation, be it European, Asian or African that grants us the ability to rise to seats of power and prestige. 2) I’m a firm believer of the concept that if you don’t like America, then leave. How many Blacks do you think are going to take off on the first plane to Nigeria? It’s not going to happen, but the whole concept of going back to Africa, or wanting to still be in Africa is hypocritical. I’m not saying not to have pride in your roots, but be rational about the situation that you are in. Even the worst hard luck case in this country can find shelter, food and clothing. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case on other side of the Atlantic Ocean to the South.

Congrats...

2005-01-08T10:56:00.000-05:00

To my good friend Eric, today he leaves the world of the single man to to become unified with his true love, best of luck and I'm honored to be included in this day.
-DCD

Bush clears brush for tsunami victims

2004-12-30T03:05:00.000-05:00

In case you didn't know, American has a pretty bad rep around the world right now. There are about six countries where a majority has a favorable view of our country, mostly in Eastern Europe. Right or wrong, most places nowadays see us as arrogant, insensitive, violent, and overbearing. In other words, some good press might be nice.

The recent tragedy in the Indian Ocean doubles as a magnificent opportunity for our country to burnish its image around the world. A speedy, massive, unequivocal dispatch of aid to hostile areas like Malaysia and Sri Lanka could significantly tamp down anti-American sentiment in the majority-Muslim world. Think of it this way--we've spent around a fifth of a trillion dollars in Iraq, supposedly to improve the overall mood of the Middle East. So far, not so much.

The latest estimates are that meaningful relief to the placest hit hardest will top out at something like two or three billion dollars. Our government can't and shouldn't shell out that kind of money. However, from a public relations standpoint, we can do a lot better than to pledge $25 million--that's tit money, and the world knows it.

George Bush took three days to put on a suit and amble over to the elementary school in Crawford to comment on the situation. That's just piss poor. I don't want to hear any bullshit about him not being briefed, either. On 9/11 he was on camera that afternoon, and you can bet he didn't know dick about what was happening.

What's worse was our president copping an attitude when some bureaucrat said our government was stingy. The fact is we're not, but Bush worded it all wrong. He fired off a bunch of petulant statistics. Would it have killed him to say something like, "I'm sure that man was just upset by this tragedy, we all are. The United States is commited to delivering swift aid to the places hit hardest, and I intend to ask both other heads of state and the American people to do their best to lessen the suffering of our friends far away."?

This crisis presents a chance to do some real good in bad places. We could help develop infrastructure, provide stability, and ease suffering on a huge scale. It's bound to go over well.

I have no doubt that our government will provide considerable support, but the public relations aspect is slipping away. It's the same as the Bam earthquake in Iran last year. Then, too, a catastrophe in a hostile area where some well publicized and heavily funded support might have done a lot to illuminate the true nature of our country.

The situation in Iraq is so wasteful in so many ways--yet we pour a fortune in "blood and treasure" to make a horrible situation a little bit better maybe 10 years from now. Is it so hard to pursue the relief and goodwill of friends far away with the same singleminded enthusiasm?

Metaphors are fun

2004-12-22T04:28:00.000-05:00

When exactly will Social Security become a problem? What year? No houses falling apart, no sitting in a bar--a specific year that is absolutely certain, verifiable, and on which everyone agrees. I'll tell you--you don't know. That's like predicting what year the Dow will hit 11,000.

I'm guessing it's not now, 10 years from now, or even longer. How is this a crisis? Since Bush absolutely won't cut benefits, since Bush absolutely won't raise taxes, since Bush plans on massive borrowing to "fix" the "problem" anyway, why can't we just wait until Social Security actually reaches critical mass? When would you rather borrow $2,000,000,000,000? Personally I'd rather wait until the last possible second.

PS. If you want to know my brilliant solution, I'd just raise the age you receive benefits to 75, starting in 2040 or so, and ride out the payout storm. By then all the baby boomers are dead, the population stabilizes, and we don't have to borrow as much money up front.

What is the Holiday Spirit?

2004-12-21T15:14:00.000-05:00

Okay,
Over the last few years, my desire to be part of the Christmas/Holiday Spirit has greatly declined. As a child, this time of year is magical, it's about snow, hot chocolate, making lists for presents and putting up decorations. As I have become wiser in my years, I have seen through all the pomp to recognize what this time is about compared to what it should be about.

Now, although this is the "holiday" season, I'm going to focus on Christmas because I personally can't call out faults on any other religion I don't practice, but also, Christmas is what is thrown in the public's face more than other holiday we have. The commercialization of this religious day has lead me to have a deep resentment for everything around me. Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ, and that gets lost between the iPods, XBoxes, TiVo's and cell phones. Now granted, Christmas has been adopted by other cultures and even people practicing other religions as a method to express their gratitude and friendship to others, and the act alone is noble, but why is it that for many, especially practicing Christians, that this good will only comes out now? Because as the old saying goes, you should be a "good boy or girl" to get what you want? That's a load of BS, because the meaning of Christmas should be expressed all year around, regardless of religion. It's about love, and caring, and being thankful for small things. It's about family and friends and reaching out to those less fortunate. I read in one of my favorite blogs today about how the inn keeper that refused Joseph and Mary is still scrubbing toilets today, so don't be that inn keeper, but that lesson should not be taken to heart just between Thanksgiving and New Year's. My best friends are good to me all year round, and I hope they can say the same about me. I know I don't do as much charity work as I should, but I try to do little things, I try to remember how lucky I am and that any wrong turn in my past could have lead me to an unfortunate situation. I pray every night based on my religious beliefs because I'm a Catholic all year round, not simply a CEM Catholic(Christmas, Easter, Mother's Day). And I don't think the Holidays should be the excuse for good behavior.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a complete malcontent, there are things I still enjoy and hold near to my heart. I love people celebrating with food and song. I love talking to those that have been distanced from me and reconnecting with them, I love the fact that people are indeed in a better mood. But I can never shake the fact that it's not because of what this holiday is about, but what it has become. Seriously, what's the difference between the meaning of Thanksgiving and Christmas, well clearly there is a religious difference, but in modern day speak, it's the same, except for Christmas, you get presents. This is why Thanksgiving gets less exposure, even though it is quite frankly the only holiday we have as Americans that encompasses all people; rich, poor, black, white, Christian, Jew, etc.

The teachings of these holidays all come down to be the best person you can be, as often as you can. And yes, no one is perfect, but how far from grace should we be willing to accept? Also, is the price of a gift truly the measurement of how good a person you are? Some of you may automatically think I'm cheap and that's why I don't care for the holidays, but it's just the opposite, but I don't feel as if giving someone a $300 gift is anywhere near the equivalent as being there for a friend when they call you at 3am and they need your help. The mystique of the Spirit of Christmas itself is wonderful. And perhaps if everyone acted throughout the year as they did between November and January, the mystique would not be as special or noticeable, but maybe that's the point, maybe it shouldn't be noticeable. Maybe good will should simply be a way of life.

Another question....

2004-12-19T23:23:00.000-05:00

You and I go into a bar. We order some drinks. Before serving us, the bartender says that our drinks are going to be much more expensive than we thought, but he gives me (and only me) an option: we can get up and walk away, not being served, and not owing anything for the drinks that we did not get; or we can stay, drink and you can pay the full price for the drinks we ordered. I am the only one who gets to make this decision: no matter how thirsty you are, I get to decide whether or not you get to drink; and no matter how strapped for cash you are, I get to decide whether or not you're on the hook for our bar tab. Does this seem fair?

We'll get to the moral of this story in a little bit.

Today the Washington Post ran the first in a series of three articles about homicides involving pregnant women. Apparently the research for this story had been going on for a year, but they don't say whether this week's gruesome story from Missouri had anything to do with the publishing timeline. Regardless, today's story focused on the statistics of homicides involving pregnant women, and how much higher it seems to be than conventional wisdom or experts would suspect. Many of the sources quoted noted what one would assume in a case of a pregnant woman being murdered, namely, that the murder was carried out by a boyfriend/husband/lover who did not want the baby to be born (at this point, a little light bulb should be going off over your head if you were at all paying attention to our little opening parable, but you'll have to bear with me for a few more sentences). To me, there are two fundamental questions underlying this issue, one the story addresses at the periphery, and the other left completely unexplored. Be warned that these involve what I have come to call "the subject you do not discuss in polite conversation." One is the inherent double standard that the current legal environment codifies for expectant mothers and fathers, and the other is the overall effect the legality of abortion has had on these crimes.

The article did touch on the current double standard in reproductive rights, but only to portray men as thuggish and abusive, only looking out for their own self interests, such as the story of Coleman "Mike" Johnson:

Tammy Baker, 24, was a well-liked bookkeeper who lived in an apartment in Louisa, Va., 30 miles east of Charlottesville, when she met Coleman "Mike" Johnson Jr., a contractor on a repair job at a nearby nuclear power plant.
The two hit it off for a time, then parted ways. One day, Baker called him to say she was pregnant and intended to have the baby. They argued repeatedly by phone, recalls Tracey Ryder, a friend
of Baker's. He did not want a baby, nor did he want any child support obligations. But Baker did not change her mind.

By the time Baker was eight months pregnant, she had chosen a name, Savannah, and decorated a room for the baby girl she was expecting; she worked two jobs to save money. But the
conflict with Johnson never went away. On Dec. 3, 1997, Baker stooped down for what looked like a mislaid garbage can lid outside her apartment door.

Beneath the lid were two pipe bombs.
Baker was killed instantly in the explosion, which literally shook the earth in Louisa, and people in the small town found it hard to imagine. Who would kill a pregnant woman?
"He did it for money," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Bondurant. "He didn't want to pay child support." As in other cases, Johnson at first denied it was his child, then pressed for an abortion, then plotted murder. "It seems to me that these guys hope against hope for a miscarriage or an abortion, but when everything else fails, they take the life of the woman to avoid having the baby," said Jack Levin of Northeastern University.

Please note that I'm not attempting to excuse this behavior. He had unprotected (or perhaps protected) sex with her and was not prepared for what could happen. Most people who know me have heard the phrase "We do not live in a consequence free universe" more times than the probably would like. There is no excuse for murder. My first thought when reading this article was "Well, that's what happens when stupid people do stupid things." But, just for one second, look at the inherent inequity of the situation.

Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of abortion, realize that Tammy Baker could have, at any moment up until she actually gave birth to a live baby, chosen to disassociate herself from the pregnancy by opting to have an abortion. Mike Johnson was offered no such opportunity, even though every indication was that he was not in a financial position to support a child nor did he want a child. If you look at the realization of pregnancy as the creation of a choice - to keep the baby or not keep the baby - legally there is only one person who gets to make that choice, but there are two people who can potentially suffer the consequences of it. Does the opening story make sense now?

Tammy's choice to keep the baby by definition created a whole range of responsibilities for Mike that he neither had the means or inclination to address, and there was no legal recourse for him to remedy this fundamental unfairness. When a politician chooses to raise your taxes, you can vote him out of office. When a restaurant owner changes the recipe for your favorite dish, you can stop going there. In America you have the opportunity to influence every choice that impacts you either before or after the fact. Every choice that is, except if you're a man and a woman chooses to keep a pregnancy you don't want.

When I brought up this problem to my fiance, she did not think allowing men the opportunity to legally disassociate themselves from a pregnancy was a good idea. "Wouldn't this just stop men from taking responsibility for their actions?" she asked. That's a valid point. But, there are two things that make it moot. First is that for every abuse of the "male rights" scenario one can dream up, a corresponding abuse of "abortion rights" can be cited (using abortion as birth control, getting pregnant to try and get a man to stop from breaking up with you, etc.). And, more importantly, the argument for "male rights" isn't based on it being good or bad, right or wrong, but rather, is created to address the fundamental unfairness that current reproductive law has created.

The second, and more fundamental question since it informs the first, is the overall impact the legality of abortion has had on this particular crime. Aside from creating the dual class citizenry outlined above, abortion law has done something much more subtle and much more sinister: it has destroyed the reverence we as a society once held for pregnancy and reproduction. Abortion, at its core, is the state sponsored destruction of life (or, for you NARAL acolytes, potential life). Once the government condoned its destruction, is it surprising that the citizens have begun to lose respect for it? A pregnant woman was, and still should be, something that was seen as delicate and beautiful, worthy of protecting at all costs, carrying the greatest gift we can give the world. Now it is nothing more than a choice, like a tattoo or a piercing (one of the victims the article talks about had actually been using abortion as birth control in the relationship she was carrying on with a married man, but decided to stop). I'm of the opinion that that distinction has seeped its way into the collective unconscious of our society and created this line of thought: if it's okay to choose to kill the baby, why isn't it okay to choose to kill the mother?

Even irrational decisions can have some pretenses to rationality.

Not wanting to put in jeopardy its status as a member in good standing of the liberal media, the Post would never even think about exposing a fundamental problem with the "abortion rights" position (one of many, I might add). They'll just write three sentences about each victim, tell you how an evil man who is nothing but a Hobbsian brute killed her, and let you assume that the problem is unchecked male aggression rather than the cult of abortion that has taken hold over some in today's society.

I hold out hope the next two articles will explore these issues in much greater detail, but I'm not holding my breath.

Pretend you have a house....

2004-12-19T14:06:00.000-05:00

I know it has been a while since this blog has been updated. I don't know about the other authors, but I've been really busy at work, and haven't had the time to post. That, combined with the relative lack of news after the election, has pushed posting down on the priority list. Hopefully that won't happen again.

That being said, please engage in this little thought exercise with me:

Pretend you have a house. It's a very nice house, and you like living in it. You can't sell it, and you have to live in it for the rest of your life. You had heard creeking, and groaning, and other bad noises, so you ask someone to come in and take a look at it. The news is not good: the home inspector says that the foundation is crumbling, and the wood is rotting. It's going to $X to fix these problems right now. However, the inspector figures that the house won't get to the point to where it's falling down for another 30-35 years, so you can put off the repairs, but, if you do that, it will cost anywhere from five to ten times X to fix.

Is there any sane homeowner who wouldn't spend X now to make sure that the house doesn't fall down?

Your house is social security. Does the "crisis" of it falling down have to happen before you worry about fixing it? Why are politicians in Washington haggling about whether or not the house is falling down now, rather than admiting that it's going to fall down and looking for the best way to fix it?

I also am thankful

2004-11-26T07:24:00.000-05:00

I'm thankful to be sitting in Oregon, unable to go to bed because I'm ashamed of my Thanksgiving gas. I'm thankful for the 21st and 22nd Amendments. I'm thankful that there is a broad and deep bureaucracy at State. I'm thankful that Jeb Bush said he's not running for president in '08. I'm thankful that I only have to go to Texas when I'm connecting flights. I'm thankful that someone actually read the omnibus bill before it was too late. I'm thankful to the Chinese and Saudis for financing my government. I'm thankful for liberal hotel shuttle drivers. I'm thankful for Ed Rendell. I'm thankful for Janet Jackson, Howard Stern, makeover shows, and premium cable television. I'm thankful that California is releasing non-violent drug offenders because of budget crunch. I'm thankful for legalized gambling and cigarettes.

Most of all, I'm thankful to love and be loved, and to pack a monster that would make Derik's eyes bug out.

A blessing for Thanksgiving

2004-11-25T11:11:00.000-05:00

egb3r: Today I'm thankful for all the belssings god has bestowed upon me, and I'm thankful for the sacrifices of everyone around the world to help keep all of us safe from the evils of the world, both foreign and domestic.

TheFranchiseDCD: amen my friend...

egb3r: So god bless your dad, god bless Pat Tillman and every other casualty's soul, and god bless the homeless man who doesn't know where he's going to find his next meal

TheFranchiseDCD: i'm thankful for being in a situation where not only do i have a wonderful family, but equally as wonderful friends, i'm thankful that they are all healthy and happy and fortunate to live in this country, i'm thankful that we have men and women that put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans, and for the people's in countries of conflict. ii'm thankful that deep down, most people do have good hearts when the cards are against us

egb3r: Sing it brother.

Sex in the TV

2004-11-17T16:11:00.000-05:00

Can someone please tell me what the big deal is with sex in America? People are clamoring about the Monday Night Football opening with Terrell Owens and Nicollette Sheridan. Seriously, what's the issue here? This wasn’t a boob shot, or even an ass shot, it was her back!! The moral fabric of America has not been destroyed by this and will not be. We have shows on basic cable that throws around swears(check out anything after 9pm on FX or Comedy Central) and rear nudity(NYPD Blue), we have video games that depicts gang violence(the Grand Theft Auto series), and the movies that are meant for kids are having more and more adult situations(Mean Girls), yet ABC has to issue an apology for some harmless joking. Or maybe it’s because a beautiful white woman jumped into a dazzling, yet cocky black man’s arms? I’m not trying to make it racial, but it’s something to think about. Had it been Tom Brady instead of TO would the reaction have been the same? Regardless, I’m sick of all this over sensitivity to sex. Kids were getting oral sex in the back of school buses long before Justin had Janet naked by the end of that song. I know this is a little crass for this forum, but it really bothers me that some people have a stronger reaction to this than the Presidential election. Parents, you can’t hide sex from your children, it’s out there, but if you took the time to educated them on making the proper decisions for themselves instead of blaming everyone else and letting television raise your kids, maybe you wouldn’t be so concerned about such a trivial matter.

Read this article!

2004-11-12T15:08:00.000-05:00

From the Chronicle of Higher Education, an author with a healthy academic reputation (history professor emeritus at Emory) and not exactly a raging conservative (a board member of the NEA, an organization not to be confused with the NRA) comments on the problems with liberals in academia. My favorite line:

Apart from the ill-mannered righteousness, academics with too much confidence in their audience utter debatable propositions as received wisdom.

No matter what side of the debate you fall on, this article should be required reading.

Dems and Moral Extremism

2004-11-11T22:28:00.000-05:00

There is a good article from the Weekly Standard that posits that the Dems will forever be the minority party due to their moral extremism; i.e. the I'm right and you're wrong position they take on a host of issues (gay marriage, abortion, seperation of church and state). It's not that having conviction is a bad thing, it's that their conviction does not allow for a grey area. The last paragraph sums it up best:

If Democrats are to regain the moral-values crowd, they don't need to pander to the devout with photo ops at church services and well-timed references to the Almighty. They don't even need to be particularly religious. They just have to learn to humbly acknowledge that moral issues are thorny and require thoughtful consideration. And they have to respect the opinions and doubts of others.

Words to consider.

2004-11-10T13:56:00.000-05:00

Republicans....
have a mandate (kind of). On the surface, 51% of the population and 286 electoral votes does not smack of a mandate, but when you put it in context of the last four years, the people seem to be overwhelmingly approving of Republican ideology. Bush went from losing the popular vote in 2000 to getting more votes than any other candidate in the history of the Presidency. The Republican margin in the house has increased over the past four years, and, more importantly, the margin in the Senate has increased. The mandate is exemplified more by the defeat of Tom Daschle than anything else. Daschle had remained in power, and somewhat popular, as the chief rival to the President and Republican agenda in general, despite representing a state that supported the President by an 18-25% margin. South Dakota's repudiation of his power that would no doubt have continuned to flood the state with government funds in favor of someone who would be willing to work with the President to further Republican aims speaks volumes. As Goerge Allen said at a news conference, beating Daschle was like picking up three seats, because Senators (especially the other Democrats from the Dakotas) will be more reluctant to blatantly obstruct.

Democrats....
Are in need of guidance. The great sport in Washington these days is dissecting "what went wrong" with the Democrats. However, most of the liberal chattering class is unwilling to admit two fundamental facts: 1) that there are a lot of Republicans out there who do not fit neatly into the backwards, bible thumping, uneducated, easily duped stereotype that liberals use to simultaneously describe conservatives and assuage their own loss-induced depression, and 2) that a lot of current liberal-democratic thinking is out of the mainstream. Much like Republicans after the 1964 election, Democrats need to regroup and figure out what they stand for. Currently the party appears to be comprised of a coalition of anit-war, anti-Nixon activists that was cobbled together in the 60's and 70's, and carried over to opposing Reagan's policies during the Cold War. Ed's comments to Derik's post-election post start to drive to the heart of the matter: namely, that middle of the road, centrists-with-a-twist-of-liberal Democrats have failed to repudiate the policy positions and the actions of the extremists of the far left, so they are allowing their party to be defined by it.

R.I.P....
Public polling. And thank goodness. Polling was the absolute worst thing to happen to American politics since the 24 hour news cycle.

You don't think polling is dead? Check thes statisitics: only one of the roughly twelve major national polls got the final popular vote percentage correct, while another got the margin correct; John Zogby, considered one of the nations best, predicted that John Kerry would win 312 electoral votes, including Virginia and Ohio (for those of you who forgot, Kerry won 252 votes, and lost Virginia and Ohio); the exit polls, even the "final" exit polls, were all way off base. This, perhaps, is the most significant development of the night. Despite what a lot of people may think, polling is a lot more art than science. For example, when polled, about 80% of the people say that they voted in any given election. We know that the actual participation rate is closer to 50%. So, what pollsters would do is use data collected from exit polls to tweak data collected during the rest of the year to try and make it more representative of reality. With exit polls not reflecting the actual results of election night, this tweaking cannot be done, and public polls will be even less accurate than they have been in the past.

Why do I think public polls are so bad? Because they end up wagging the dog. People tend to have a mob mentality, and never want to be unpopular. If a public poll says that 60% of the population thinks a certain way, someone who is a member of the other 40% may start to question their belief, for no reason other than it's not the popular one (my favorite story of this comes from David Brooks, a relatively intelligent columnist from the New York Times. He said that while watching the first debate he felt it was pretty much a draw, but after listening to focus groups and reading the polls, he thought George Bush lost...unbelievable). Taken to the extreme (as I'm prone to doing), this can be very bad, and discourage enlightened dissent. For all this risk, there is no reward to public polling. We live in a republic, not a democracy (hate to break this one to you guys, but it's the truth). While political scientists much more enlightened than I have spent centuries arguing how responsive officials should be to the people, there is only one poll that matters, and that's the one on election day. What do I care if 50.1% of the people, with a 4% MoE think that a certain policy decision is good or bad? Do they know all the details? Are they informed enough about the situation make an educated decision? Aren't those concerns why we have a republican form of government in the first place?

The Good Thing....
Is the Kerry conceded without resorting to the courts. Going to back to court would have been the absolute worst thing that could have happened, and I give them credit for realizing that and throwing in the towel. That being said, why didn't they concede on election night (or, at least, early the next morning), especially once Cuyahoga county had reported 99% of its precincts but Kerry was still down more than 130,000 votes? Even if there were 250,000 uncounted ballots at the time (a dubious assertion at best), he would have had to win them almost 4 to 1 to win Ohio. He didn't even win Cuyahoga county by that margin. Not being able to admit when the fight is lost just makes you look like a petulent child, or someone who is out of touch with reality. Even the momentary lapse (punctuated by the Bush campaign giving Kerry "the respect to take a look at the hard facts") made Kerry look worse, not better, to most of the American people. As a slight tangent to this, why were the networks so reluctant to call Ohio and Florida for Bush, but eager to call Pennsylvania for Kerry, even though the margins that each state was won by were approximately the same? Just something to think about.

What's next....
not much new. We're going to win Iraq. The battle to retake Fallujah is going on as we speak, and the Marines are going to crush the insurgency, aided by thousands of Iraqis who are willing to fight to protect themselves. As long as the chattering class can get over the fact that, while tragic, casualties happen in war, and those casualties are serving the greater good of the American and Iraqi people, we'll be closer to success than ever before.

Also, a note to the liberals of the world: Bush is going to nominate conservative judges who do not legislate from the bench. You need to understand this and get over it. You also need to understand that it's not necessarily a bad thing. Would you like a judge to legislate from the bench that schools are required by law to randomly search lockers, or that abortion clinics are required to council adoption and other options, impose mandatory waiting periods, etc?

Bush's plans to overhauld the tax code and social security are good things. While there may be some speed bumps during implementation, they will end up helping the American people in the long run.

Evolve or die. Think long term. Everything will work out in the end.

Yeah yeah yeah

2004-11-03T15:33:00.000-05:00

I guess Ohioans figured they had too many people working there. If I could grab Ohio's collective electorate by the lapels I'd scream at them, "you can't eat security!!!"

Now we find out all the stuff that Bush and the T-Sandwiches put off until after the election. My guess is that the federal debt tops 10 trillion. Underfunded federal mandates will cause more states and cities to raise taxes--sales, income, property, tolls, than are offset by any further federal income tax cuts.

What's scary about this election is that people have said it's okay to arrest people who disagree with the president in public. It's okay to most people to "let the market decide" on almost anything except free speech on the public airwaves.

This election will embolden the Jesus like never before. Anyone think George Bush will say "civil unions" ever again as long as he lives? Those leftover embryos at fertility clinics can now go safely straight to the Jesus and into the trash without helping anyone figure out whether or not stem cell research is for real.

Say adios to our natural resources--forests, wildlife preserves, entire mountaintops. All going or gone so that we have a little bit more oil or coal, which both wind up wrecking the environment, too.

So fuck this president, fuck the war, and fuck anyone who voted for Bush to feel more "secure." The chances are about one in a bazillion that anything would happen to you or anyone you know in a terrorist attack. You're only scared because you were told to be.

The Backlash...

2004-11-03T10:22:00.000-05:00

As soon as I woke up this morning I began deliberating on whether or not to post today. I have tried to remain as unbiased throughout the entire election process in order to demonstrate that there are people in this country that can pull information from various sources, ignore the conservative and liberal propaganda and vote based on what is best from them. So today, Im going to express my thoughts on events of November 2nd, 2004. The most important thing is the mobilization of voters, so many people in the liberal media and Hollywood are complaining that all the initiatives to get young people out to vote didnt work, well, just because many of them voted for the incumbent doesnt mean it didnt work. I think its wonderful people are becoming more involved in the process, and I hope it continues, not just in the next Presidential election, but in the next 2 years, when state and local offices will be up for grabs. Stay involved! And if your choice did not come out victorious, then you must get back out there and express your choice again and again. Change does not happen overnight, and I hope people are not discouraged in the future.

Now on to the actual choice that Americans have made. I would like to say that I will give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, and I hope that he can restore my faith and well as over 54 million other Americans faith in him and his ability to lead this country. He has a chance to turn around what many would consider a disappointing first four years, and even being a Democrat, I am rooting for him to prove that he is fit to represent the people of this country. Before Im a Democrat, a citizen of Massachusetts, or a minority, Im an American, and I always hope that our leaders that are put in place will serve this country as best they can.

On to my gripe with the results, it seems as if the majority, and for the first time in awhile, a clear majority (being over 50% of the popular vote) has decided that W is the best man for the job. I have serious problems with this based on his performance. Clearly the war on terror was the issue at hand for many voters, yet issues that are on our own soil were sidestepped. The economy is down, unemployment is up, the rich are the beneficiaries of tax cuts, corporations are outsourcing jobs, the price of healthcare and prescription drugs is getting to a point where people have to choose to eat or get medication, the cost of higher education is on the rise, and very little has been done to combat any of these. Some people will say W has created new jobs recently, but the wages of those jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to what people were making 5 years ago. One of the things I was taught very early was that a person should base their voting decisions on if they are better or worse now than they were 4 years ago. Now, Im in a position where I can say I am better off salary wise, but, does my singular increase in wage make me forget about the hundreds of people that have been laid off from my company and many others across the country? No, it doesnt, and I think that would be irresponsible on my part. Now, I havent even touched on social issues such as stem cell research, mandatory prison terms for drug crimes and civil unions between same sex couples, but my point in mentioning all of this is that a President has so many advisors, aides, consultants, experts, whatever you want to call his various cabinet members that he should be able to fight a war on terror and balance a budget. He should be able to keep searching for Bin Laden and stimulate the economy. We all know the President has many hats, and voting for a man that has only worn one hat in the last 3 years, Commander in Chief, and basically ignored the rest of his duties seems unfit to me. The fight against terror will continue to be waged regardless of who is in office. No newly elected President would risk his or her legacy being known for allowing another 9/11 to take place. This is what I have such fault with; the needs that we see everyday are not being attended to, and were not voted on. This country has become so obsessed with national security that people are willing to accept all of the shortcomings, just to have what many consider a warmonger in office, as opposed to a Vietnam veteran. If a person is so concerned with security why not have a man that lived in a war and not just watched from the side lines? Im not saying this to draw comparisons between the two candidates, but the logic of many American people simply baffles me. "Succeeding", and I use that term loosely, in one role and failing miserably in all the others does not merit approval. If my job performance parrelled our President's, I would have be fired or laid off last year.

So then, we get to the Democratic Party itself, which dropped the ball in a huge way. W is the most unpopular President to be re-elected in history. People dont trust him; they question his actions and motives, and increasingly the number of people that support the war in Iraq is falling. So how does this man win? Well, the Democrats waited too long to rally the party around a candidate. When Al Gore decided not to run for President again, the party was in chaos. A handful of hopefuls were presented to the public, Dean, Wesley, Kerry, Edwards, and Sharpton, none of which were well known to the general population. The Democratic Party simply needed another Clinton, and none of these men could fill his shoes, and many of you might even say thats not such a bad thing. But Gore was the last tie to that administration, and once he said declined to run, there was no one the party could turn to. The Party did not emphasize national concerns and fought on the battlefields the Republicans wanted to stick to. By disputing the wars on terror and Iraq, all the Dems did was keep that in the minds of the voting population. Other people might find some differing reasons as to why Kerry was unsuccessful, but I think these reasons stand up by themselves. I would include the misrepresentation of pollsters information too, but thats another can of worms that at this time Im not opening.

So as any good political analyst would do, not saying I am one or anything, but now I look to 2008, and where that leaves both parties. I dont see Cheney running for the Presidency, and I think Republicans know that he would not be the ideal candidate. He lacks any "charm" that Bush may bring to the table. Plus his health will always be a concern. And until 2006, I dont think anyone will ruffle any feathers announcing any sort of interest to run. Ideally, John McCain would make a bid, but he seems less enamored with the idea than he was in 2000, or perhaps hes simply downplaying it now in order to keep the party together. Also, Rudy Giuliani could be thrown in there, but I honestly think he is content being away from politics. He has the best reputation out of any potential candidate, but I think he will take a page from Colin Powell and pass on the job. From the Democratic side, John Kerry and John Edwards are both dead, neither will make a run nor at least be successful at making that run for the nations top two offices again. So who is left, forget Dick Gephardt, if he hasnt been successful by now, he never will be. Howard Dean, pass, the war cry will always stick with him making him seem like a lunatic. Obama, get real, way too young and unproven. Look for the Dems to go back to the well and attempt to put Clinton back in the White House, but not William Jefferson. Hillary Clinton will be the Dems big ticket candidate. She wants to be the first female President of this country, and quite honestly, she has the best chance to do it. In four more years, the demographics of this country will have changed yet again; more minorities and more women will represent the voting population. If Bushs second term is as much of a failure as his first has been considered, people will remember the prosperous days of the Clinton era and will long for that yet again. The one thing that would fail Hillary is if terror is still the #1 priority of the people. I hate saying this, but I believe a disproportionate amount of people would vote against Hillary simply because they feel a woman could not be an effective military leader. But we have 4 years to figure that out.

Election Day!

2004-11-02T11:35:00.000-05:00

Just a reminder to any of our readers out there, please vote today. I'm sure if you read this blog regularly, you know that not only is it a right, but your civic duty to go to the polls and cast your ballot. For anyone that may just be visiting this day, if you're registered, please make it a point to vote. We argue all the time here on whether Bush or Kerry is the best choice to lead this country, but now, that's not even the issue. Whoever you support, make your voice heard, push the amount of American's who voted in 2000, 106 million voters, to 120 million in 2004. Make the youth vote count, change the game and make it known that the elderly aren't the most important demographic!

Electoral College, no particular friend

2004-11-01T15:37:00.000-05:00

As a matter of fact, three times the popular vote winner didn't become president--Andrew Jackson in 1824, Samuel Tilden, and Al Gore.

You're right about the Founding Fathers being concerned about a strong central government. They would be ashamed of Bush v. Gore.

The fact that Ric Flair or anyone can game the system the way I described proves that the system needs reform. That such a scenario is even possible in our system of government is head-slapping retarded.

The "small state ignored" argument has two problems. One, these states will still have representatives who toil night and day to get as much pork home as possible. Who can win the most pork is probably going to be the decisive issue in Senate races in South Dakota and Alaska, for example. Two, our presidential candidates already spend all their time campaigning in a handful of states to the neglect of others. They're called battleground states.

The right of the people to be heard trumps state's rights. In fact, I can't believe a well-meaning white person in this day and age would even say "state's rights" out loud. "State's rights" as an argument again and again turns out to be code for "how can I fuck someone out of their rights?"

It's no different with the Electoral College--a system defended only because it's there now. Our Constitution is flexible for a reason--to gradually evolve with the times. The sea of lawyers and Republican polling-place-bouncers (sorry, fraud watchers) descending on our democracy will eventually persuade even small-staters to come around. As Bush likes to say--"Make no mistake," the era of election-then-shitload-of-lawsuits is quite possible. Direct elections and uniform voting standards for presidential elections both reduce the likelihood of fraud and take away to possibility of another selected president.

Where to begin.....

2004-11-01T13:32:00.000-05:00

The electoral college is a much maligned organization these days. It's difficult to pick up a paper, or read a political journal, or watch a Sunday talk show without someone disparaging the electoral college. I am here to remind everyone that the electoral college is a valuable institution that needs to be preserved.

First, to the charges leveled by Narc. He basically took the premise of strangely engrossing article from Slate that examined the possiblity of John McCain becoming president through the same mechanism described to make Mr. Space Mountain the president. This has about a 1 in 80,83,075,032,138,751 chance of happening with McCain, and a 0% chance of happening with Ric Flair, so let's keep our criticism to the relatively practical.

The concept of the electoral college is deeply entrenched in the federalist characteristics of our government. The two things the Founding Father's feared more than anything else were the the tyrrany of the majority and a large, powerful central government. Federalism was the answer to these problems. To check the tyrrany of the majority, an indepent judiciary was established to arbiter legal questions, while the states were made sovreign in the federal government to control its power(originially, the only part of the government that was responsive to the people was the house of representatives). This still holds true today. If the President was elected directly, there would be no great coalition building. There would be no move to the center. The smart candidate would offer as much money and services to California, New York and Texas as possible (spending all of their time and campaign resources there), while completely ignoring the issues and concerns of the residents of the smaller states.

The electoral college has worked as intended for 217 years. One twice has someone who won a majority of the popular vote lost in the electoral college. Changing it now, based on outrage from one result, would be nothing more than change for the sake of change (not to mention politically impossible since small states would never willfully give up the power they have). If you don't like the fact that Wyoming's three electoral votes go Republican all the time, move with about 100,000 of your Democratic friends to Wyoming and change the result. Don't change the constitution because current demographics make you upset. Otherwise, we'll have to change the Constitution to suit the whims of the majority every time there is an electoral shift. This is a recipie for disaster.

Open question to the readers

2004-11-01T13:28:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to figure out the answer to the following question, and I'd like other people's thoughts:

What could President Bush do in his second term to "unify" the country? What would it take for him to get the ABB'ers on his side?

Conversely, what could a Kerry administration do to woo the half of the country that voted for Bush?

Serious answers only please. Try to avoid the knee jerk "Bush can't do anything cause he's a rotten, illegitimate president that I could never support" or "Kerry should not change any of his policy because the people who supported Bush are idiots". If the winner on Tuesday wanted to try his best to unify the country, what would he do? Or, is it impossible?

P.S. The Electoral College is Fucking Stupid (or: how Ric Flair could legally become president come January)

2004-10-31T05:31:00.000-05:00

This antiquated mess Eric keeps touting has HOLES, brothers. I'm not kidding when I say Ric Flair could become president next year, and it would be completely Constitutional.

From Wikipedia:

If no candidate receives an absolute electoral majority for President, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President. In this case, the top three electoral vote getters for President are the candidates for the House of Representatives to select from, and the House votes en-bloc by state for this purpose.

Let's say for fun that the popular vote comes down in such a way that we get a 269-269 tie. So we go to the House and Bush wins, right?

Not necessarily. Let's say just for fun that this December one of these electors changes his mind and decides that it would be pretty neat to have the Nature Boy as our president. So now the House has to pick from Bush, Kerry, and Flair.

Since Flair is a master of arm twisting (to say nothing of knife-edge chops), he convinces enough state delegations to go his way. Hey presto! A new, duly selected president who never received a vote on Election Day.

The epilogue to this little morality play is this--the Electoral College is a rotten, divisive law. It was designed to curtail popular political impact. It serves to perpetuate the two party duopoly at the expense of inclusion and compromise. Many issues that deserve debate and are extremely important to voters get ignored--poverty, race, the environment, infrastructure, and on and on.

It's not the end of the world if we use a direct popular vote. If no one gets 50%, the top two vote getters have a runoff. Simple. The End. Jesus Christ, already.

Presidential candidates operate for the most part on motivating the base and fragmenting the opponent's base. That means presidential elections come down to a handful of pretty stupid shit, usually. Sure, we hear about "the economy" and "the war on terror" a little bit, but the closer we get to the election--it's guns, abortions, and social security. We've had the same election every four years as long as I've been watching them, and it's because these narrow issues turn out the same people over and over. That's why half the country stays home and doesn't give a shit in November. The only reason this election will buck that trend a little tiny bit is because Bush is a particularly offensive bag of trash, but that's another blog entry.

Direct elections open the debate floor to a wide variety of issues and force "major" candidates to adopt specific policies of "issue" candidates in order to create a majority coalition. Direct elections even the playing field in terms of vote strength relative to population.

This is the information age, remember? Our country can handle the responsibility of informed choice for its president.

Reality vs. Reality

2004-10-26T19:00:00.000-04:00

I watch and listen and read the news a lot. I mean every day. I read two or three newspapers at work every night. I listen to NPR on my way home from work. I watch "Fox and Friends First" and "Daybreak" when I get home. I watch "Inside Politics" every afternoon. I usually catch a couple minutes of the local and national nightly news. I watch Sunday talk. I scan blogs. I'm a fucking silly political junkie.

For all that news consumption I never see a news organization point out that one political figure or another is lying during this campaign. What I see is one side saying something they present as fact, and another side contradicting that something and offering its version. Journalists are too chickenshit to call bullshit, they mistake balance of time for responsible reporting.

The Nation put out a fantastic article a week ago with 100 facts neither side can dispute. They may be subject to interpretation, but they are what they are. Here's a sample.

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

14. The Bush Administration secured less nuclear material from sites around the world vulnerable to terrorists in the two years after 9/11 than were secured in the two years before 9/11

15. The Bush Administration underfunded Nunn-Lugar--the program intended to keep the former Soviet Union's nuclear legacy out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states--by $45.5 million.

16. The Bush Administration has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money.

21. Despite repeated calls for reinforcements, there are fewer experienced CIA agents assigned to the unit dealing with Osama bin Laden now than there were before 9/11.

24. The Bush Administration granted the 9/11 Commission $3 million to investigate the September 11 attacks and $50 million to the commission that investigated the Columbia space shuttle crash.

30. The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton--a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food.

42. The Bush Administration has crippled state budgets by underfunding federal mandates by $175 billion.

45. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush said "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." He passed the tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of earners received 68 percent of the benefits.

46. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to pay down the national debt to a historically low level. As of September 30, the national debt stood at $7,379,052,696,330.32, a record high.

53. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to increase the maximum federal scholarship, or Pell Grant, by 50 percent. Instead, each year he has been in office he has frozen or cut the maximum scholarship amount.

67. The Bush Administration blocked a proposal to ban the use of arsenic-treated lumber in playground equipment, even though it conceded it posed a danger to children.

80. President Bush broke his campaign promise to end the maintenance backlog at national parks. He has provided just 7 percent of the funds needed, according to National Park Service estimates.

86. At the direction of Bush Administration officials, the FBI went door to door questioning people planning on protesting at the 2004 political conventions.

89. President Bush said gay marriage was a state issue before he supported a constitutional amendment banning it.

90. President Bush said he was committed to capturing Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" before he said, "I truly am not that concerned about him."

96. The Bush Administration refuses to release twenty-seven pages of a Congressional report that reportedly detail the Saudi Arabian government's connections to the 9/11 hijackers.

I left out a bunch of them because you could smell slanty bullshit. The ones above, though, are fact. Sourced, confirmed fact. Take a long look at what this administration has done to undermine, cover up, cripple, and distort so much of what's important to our country. The only guiding principle the handful of puppeteers in this administration follows is to retain and expand political power. Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the rest of them have no discernable philosophy guiding their actions...except to stay in power at all costs, and make themselves and their high-end contributors as wealthy as possible.

Beyond stupid....

2004-10-18T15:20:00.000-04:00

William Raspberry wrote a column in today's Washington Post that is so beyond stupid that it is difficult to discuss rationally. His basic premise is that the current winner-take-all electoral vote system is unfair because "If you didn't vote for the winner, your vote didn't count. " While there are several (in my opinion, flawed) reasons to disagree with the electoral college process, this line of thinking is completely illogical. In a constest to decide a winner and a loser, there is always going to be a winner and a loser. So, under his logic, there is always going to be people whose votes "don't count." If the Presidency were decided simply by popular vote, there would be a very large segement of the population that voted for the lose, who, by Mr. Raspberry's logic, would not have their votes count. If popular apportionment under the Nebraska model (done by congressional district) were the norm everywhere, there would be another group of people whose votes "don't count." This is making my head hurt.

In the same article, William the Wise thinks that we should use a "ranked" ballot system. Other than the fact that this would require one candidate to secure a majority, rather than a plurality of the votes, and in the current situation would only help people vote for Ralph Nader (though, it would have cost Bill Clinton the 1992 election). I really don't understand how William the Wise gets space in a major national newspaper.

UPDATE
I found another article advocating a form of popular apportionment.
A few interesting notes:

Had the "Nebraska" model been in place for the entire country in the 2000 election, George Bush would have secured 285 electoral votes to Al Gore's 253. The biggest loss came from California, where the score would go from 54-0 to 35-19.
More importantly, this article is not "beyond stupid" the way William the Wise's was, because the author does not advocate popular apportionment as a remedy to people's votes "not counting". The author, like Ed, believes that popular apportionment would force candidates to moderate their views in an effort to pick up the individual congressional districts required to reach 270. He also feels, and I agree, that the Nebraska model would make it more practical for third party candidate to be competitive on a national scale.

However, neither Ed nor he does not address my belief that this situation has the potential to make candidates more partisan by removing the large electoral rewards that come from gaining the votes of swing voters in a particular state.

"I'm personally opposed to it...."

2004-10-18T09:21:00.000-04:00

I have always been uneasy with politicians who say about one issue or another "I am personally opposed to it, but I'm not going to force my opinion on the rest of society." This answer is generally given by NARAL mouthpieces who also claim to be deeply spiritual, but will sneak its way into the dialogue about other issues from time to time. My question for politicians who invoke this logic is this: at what point do you actually begin to vote your conscience? If you were a legislator in Germany in the 1930's, would the position have been "While I'm personally opposed to the persecution of Jews, I'm not going to force my opinion on the rest of society." Or, what about someone during the 1850's? "I personally feel that slavery isn't the best thing, but I'm not going to tell people they are not allowed to exercise their constitutional right."

Now, I know that the other contributors to this blog are going to say that there is a serious moral difference between persecution and abortion. And, that is an argument that can be made if, as Matt has posted on this very site, you do not believe life begins until the child is viable outside of the womb (or some other definition that says life does not begin at conception/heartbeat/brain activity/etc). However, this is not what these particular politicians are saying. They are saying that they personally believe abortion is wrong and destruction of a life, but they are not willing to stand up for their convictions and say that it is wrong for society in general. Not only is this horribly illogical and cowardly thinking, but, in my opinion, it is counter to their duties as elected officials. Elected officials are supposed to do what is right for, and in the best interests of, their constituents and society in general (and, despite what you may want to think, a majority of the nation is pro-life). It is the policy maker's and law maker's job to enact legislation and allow the judiciary to determine if that is congruent with the constitutional framework within which it implies. Sadly, in modern America those roles seem reversed, with the judiciary dictating legislation from the bench and the legislature enacting those laws or restraining the judiciary.

John Kerry and other politicians who espouse the "personally opposed" philosophy need to either change their rhetoric or change their behavior, but the current line just doesn't work.

The nine syllable administration

2004-10-08T03:31:00.000-04:00

Depending on the question you ask Bush or Bush people, you get one of three answers: 9/11, tax cuts, or no comment. That's their foreign and domestic policy in a nutshell.

Economy down? Tax cuts
Ecomony up? Tax cuts
Surplus? Tax cuts
Deficit? Tax cuts
Medicare? Tax cuts
Social Security? Tax cuts
Fair trade? Tax cuts
Uninsured? Tax cuts

WMD? 9/11
Aluminum tubes? 9/11
Prisoner abuse? 9/11
Video cameras on street corners in Chicago? 9/11
Squashing dissent at home? 9/11
Squashing dissent abroad? 9/11
Frisking little old ladies at the airport? 9/11
Israel/Palestine? 9/11
Indefinite imprisonment for U.S. citizens? 9/11

Anything out of those boxes almost always gets a no comment. Haliburton, sniffing cocaine, five draft deferments, the National Guard, etc. At least, that's when you can corner these guys to actually submit to questioning. Bush and Cheney are gigantic pussies in that regard. They're both velvet-roping themselves back into the private sector.

Debates, style and more

2004-10-06T14:43:00.000-04:00

I don't like televised presidential debates. I think they do more harm than good in helping voters decide which candidate is better, and it comes down to one simple dichotomy:

Style versus Substance

People almost always remember televised debates for stylistic reasons, rather than substantive ones. A few examples:

1960 - Richard Nixon's sweaty chin and 5 o'clock shadow versus the made up John Kennedy
1988 - Michael Dukakis' unemotional answer to a question concerning the possible rape and murder of his wife
1992 - George Bush looking at his watch
2000 - Al Gore sighing repeatedly and lurking menacingly over George Bush's shoulder
2004 - George Bush smirking and grimacing, as well as repeating phrases

The first four candidates lost the election, and I can only hope that history does not hold true this year.

What those moments do not tell you about is what kind of presdient each person would make. Nixon was a veteran politician, much better versed in both domestic and foreign policy than Kennedy, yet all people can remember is the image of a sweaty VP (even though those who listened to the debate on the radio feel as though Nixon actually won). Dukakis was answering a question about the death penalty, something he had steadfastly (and in my opinion, incorrectly) opposed for his entire political career. Not displaying emotion toward a hypothetical question didn't show what kind of commander-in-chief he would have been. The argument can be made that Al Gore lost the presidency just because of his sighs.

Debates are all about style. Who has the better hair cut. Who looks "more presidential" (whatever that means). There is a strange phenomenon that groups of people who watch the debate with the sound off come to the same conclusions about who won the debate as groups of people with the sound on. The decision appears to have little if nothing to do with what they say.

For instance, there were two major "substance" gaffes during this debate, both by Kerry (his "mistake" problem, and the "global test" remark). However, by a two-to-one margin, viewers feel as though John Kerry won the debate. This is something I will never undrestand.

Interesting quote from Mr. Cheney in 1992

2004-10-05T14:26:00.000-04:00

Now, I'm not one to say that politicians can't or shouldn't change their minds based on information and situations that are placed in front of them, but for those of you that are stuck on the Kerry can't pick a side angle, well, why not take a gander at this, a quote from Mr. Cheney from 1992. Now, I know times have changed, and I'm not criticizing Dick for his words then, but how can Kerry be deemed a flip flopper when VP Cheney's statements and actions are far more contrasting than Kerry's? Big thanks to Robbie I. for the link!!!

Good luck reaching out to minorities tonight, DICK

2004-10-05T01:00:00.000-04:00

I have deleted the picture.

This is a forum for ideas and thoughts, not silly pictures. Do you see the John-Kerry-as-Oompa-Loompa picture anywhere?

What's to like?

2004-10-03T05:03:00.000-04:00

And on Bush's lack of conservative bona fides, you're absolutely right. He did do all of those things, much to the consternation of much of his base. But, unfortunately we are faced with a binary election. Given the choice of being hit in the foot with a baseball bat, and hit in the head with the same bat, I'll be hit in the foot every time. At least I can survive that one.

Let me get this straight. You disagree with Bush on almost his entire record, yet you still support him?

Since every domestic issue is "minor", let's examine Bush's foreign policy for a minute. Exactly how well would you say the war on terror is going? In the years since 9/11, the ports aren't much safer if at all, cops and firefighters are being taken off the street, agents are easily getting weapons onto planes, our National Guard has been shipped largely abroad, North Korea has constituted nuclear weapons, Islamic schools still teach hatred, democracy is dormant or on the retreat in Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, Israel and the Palestinians are no closer to peace, and Afghanistan's countryside is still controlled by warlords and Taliban leftovers. Oh yeah, and Osama bin Laden is still at large.

How are things in Iraq? Well, we're up to over a thousand dead soldiers, the "100,000" Iraqi police and soldiers either drop their weapons or sell them to the insurgency, Iraq's infrastructure is in tatters, the civilians don't recognize the new regime, and we've been negotiating with insurgents and terrorists over hostages.

There is no tangible progress in Iraq. Our forces there have been overwhelmed since one of our tanks dragged down Saddam's statue. The minute that happened people started looting and generally going apeshit, and we didn't do a thing about it, and it's only gotten worse since.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind a little help from some big, rich, Western governments. The fact is most of their heads of state hate George W. Bush. Alone, the U.S. cannot possibly kill, capture, and occupy every threat to our homeland. Our "coalition" in Iraq is fragmenting, countries are getting out all the time. How long do you really think Britain and Australia will stay in Iraq the way things are going now? The British alone have half as many troops on the ground now than during the invasion.

George W. Bush has embarrassed us around the world, emboldened our enemies, and weakened our homeland. He has hidden from criticism, ignored mistakes, and allowed himself to be the spokesperson for ignorant, shortsighted, and contradictory policy again and again. That's why his campaign is reduced to personal attacks, that's why he doesn't deserve to be our president anymore.

Kerry Wins...a Second Look

2004-10-01T17:27:00.000-04:00

Consider what Bush really lost last night--an opportunity to put this thing away. He had all the polls trending his way, Kerry pulling resources out of several states, whispers about New Jersey, and on and on. Instead, he let Kerry get a favorable news cycle, one that will persist through the weekend and up until the VP debate.

The first channel I switched to after C-Span was Fox. When William Kristol said "Kerry survived," I knew for sure Bush had been taken to the woodshed. The flash polls amplified the pundits' first reaction, and coverage today has been overwhelmingly positive for Kerry.

Fox and Friends had a "style" analyst dismantle Bush's whole presentation. The slouch and grouch routine didn't resonate. One of the anchors said Bush has bad knees, hence the slouch. Um, wasn't he mountain biking in Crawford two days or so ago? When John Kerry is given the style award on Fox you know Bush didn't get it done last night.

Speaking of style, Kerry's posture and demeanor were dead on perfect. He stood up straight, made a nice line, and didn't let his suit get all bunched up. Be it stagecraft or not, but nodding and studiously taking notes while Bush spoke worked. Bush has such a relentlessly brief and simple message that he didn't have to take notes. Most of the time during Kerry's remarks Bush was either staring into space, scowling, or biting his lip. Kerry's gestures and expressions were deliberate and well coordinated.

So that's style. Kerry wins. Substance?

Bush: Well, I think -- listen. I fully agree that one should switch tactics, and we will, in Iraq.

That's a mixed message, I'm pretty sure. That line should be in 30 seconds spots as soon as possible.

Kerry: Unfortunately, he (Osama bin Laden) escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too.

Right there Kerry stabs Bush where it hurts. Bush let politics get in the way of a major objective of the war on terror. Either that or he flat out fucked up. Does anyone want a president who does either one?

Prefer getting a little wonky? Kerry scores big points with me on this one.

Kerry: The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.

The Bush administration has dragged its feet on getting Arabic, Pashto, and other Central Asian language speakers deciphering the gigantic amount of "chatter" we intercept. Terrorist networks are lurking in that chatter. Meanwhile our armed forces have kicked out interpreters for sexual orientation. I read it in the Post a while back. No doubt about it, the president has simple and well established priorities, politics first--results later.

Kerry: When we went in (to invade Iraq), there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia, and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.

Bush: Well, actually, he forgot Poland.

Well, actually, he didn't. Poland didn't contribute troops to the invasion. Poles hit the ground well after Baghdad "fell". Gerald Ford? Not quite, but certainly in the neighborhood.

I could pick this debate apart for hours. I think Bush looked so bored and impatient and grouchy from overpreparation. He whittled his message down to the bare essentials, the easier for Joe Shitkicker to understand. Unfortunately for Bush, that whittling--devastingly effective on spots and stump speeches, left him with way too much spare time in his responses in the debate. He often looked lost, and was forced into doing what he does worst--improvising and filling time.

Kerry was just far enough behind in the horse race that the best he's getting from his performance last nght is another look from undecideds, and a few days of positive coverage. It's up to John Edwards now to keep the momentum going through the week. Edwards can't give Cheney the free ride Liberman did. Edwards made himself a millionaire by being a bona fide prick trial lawyer, and will have to emerge from the rural wilderness cool, smiling, and deadly.

What everyone is missing about the debates

2004-10-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

Hopefully later today I will have a chance to author a long post about televised debates in general and thier relative lack of true value in determining which candidate is better for the office he is seeking.

Right now, however, I need to share with everyone the most important moment of the debate that absolutely no one is talking about. People aren't talking about it, because it is a purly substantive point, and doens't discuss how Bush was scowling at times or how Kerry delivered his answers with great confidence (but, that's for the later post).

Here is a direct excerpt from the transcript. The emphasis has been added:

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

How in the world can this man claim to have a consistent view on Iraq, when he cannot keep his thoughts consistent between two direct questions about the subject?

Hate Crimes vs. Crimes

2004-09-30T15:20:00.000-04:00

egb3r: So, there is more racial idiocy at UVa.
DCD AEPi: well, it's can't be any worse than the African City in Detroit
egb3r: Well, Dean Turner is involved, so you never know.
egb3r: Go to www.discriminations.us and read the first post.
egb3r: Or, go to the Cav Daily website and look for articles.
DCD AEPi: so what's your issue with this? actually, I think it's pretty sensible to make such a form of intolerance an honor violation
egb3r: Because, as with hate crime legislation, they are making it illegal to have a thought.
egb3r: Any action that is not lying, cheating or stealing is for judish....not honor.
DCD AEPi: this isn't about a thought, it is about vandalism and abuse
DCD AEPi: what is honor, having respect for yourself as well as others...
DCD AEPi: being intolerant of races , genders or religion is w/o honor
egb3r: So you're making the penalty for feeling a certain way and committing a crime much greater than feeling another way and committing the same crime.
egb3r: Let's say I'm a member of David Duke's European American Rights Society (or whatever the hell the name of that silly organization is)....
DCD AEPi: the bottom line is the crime is racially motivated..
egb3r: One night I'm walking around drunk, and for literally no reason whatsoever, I decide to throw a rock through a car window....
egb3r: I get caught....
DCD AEPi: you don't write "nigger" on a car because you love black people
egb3r: Under the current rules, I would get whatever punishment the judiciary committee decided to mete out....
egb3r: Under the changed rules, if it turned out that the person who owned the car was black, I would be brought up on honor charges and thrown out of school simply for having an opinion....
DCD AEPi: throwing a rock has no symbolism to racism
egb3r: How do you know it wasn't a hoax? Hate-crime hoaxes are about three times as prevalent as actual hate crimes.
egb3r: (And I hate that I actually dignified their existence by quoting a statistic that recognizes them).
DCD AEPi: maybe it is a hoax, that's why things have to be proven...
DCD AEPi: no one is saying the Lundy or the Adkins crimes happened by whites or any other race..
egb3r: So why should the University be taking any action until it is proven?
DCD AEPi: so hence no one has actually be expelled from the University for those "acts"
egb3r: Until a hood wearing KKK member is caught, why should the honor system be changed?DCD AEPi: why not take action now against potential attacks, reminds me of an argument you had about why going into Iraq was the right thing to do
DCD AEPi: until WMDs were found, why should we have gone into Iraq
egb3r: WMD's were found....over and over and over again....
DCD AEPi: same argument, you just took a different side
DCD AEPi: what are you talking about, the last UN search there was nothing found
DCD AEPi: during the initial strike..
DCD AEPi: nothing was found in saddam's labs or palaces
DCD AEPi: and if you're going to use history searches, I know if necessary, people could find proof of lynching in the UVa area at one point or another
egb3r: 1981 Israel blows up the Osiris reactor, stopping Hussein from getting the bomb....1981 Hussein gasses the Kurds....1991 Hussein admits to possessing massive stores of chemical and biological weapons as part of the treaty that ended GWI....1996 Hussein's son-in-law defects and reveals the secret locations of Hussein's ongoing weapons programs that were in clear violation of the treaty.....1998 Hussein kicks out UN Inspectors....
DCD AEPi: but the basis of going into Iraq now was to find WMDs, and they found nothing, but you still endorse US military action against them...
egb3r: In the last 10 years cite an incident at UVa that was actual a proven hate crime other than the band of black youths wandering around beating up white college students because they were white?egb3r: (which, by the way, resulted in no hate-crime charges, despite Virginia and Federal law compelling those charges to be brought)
DCD AEPi: 10 years is nothing man....if there was any sort of history from 1900 through now, what makes anything different in terms of preventative actions?
DCD AEPi: you said many hate crimes may be hoaxes..
egb3r: They are in fact hoaxes.
DCD AEPi: what if many aren't reported like rape victims
egb3r: It's not a thought....either there are witnesses who see the alleged victims committing the acts, or the perpetrator confesses.....
DCD AEPi: most rapes don't have witnesses and they happen...
DCD AEPi: but I just don't understand how you can't equated this to Iraq...not saying they are on the same scale
DCD AEPi: but the fact remains, barebones that the actions are doing the same thing
DCD AEPi: trying to protect one set of people against the potential actions of another
egb3r: Iraq was saying "definitive action needs to be taken to prevent this potential danger, that we have no reason to believe doesn't exist, from happening"....
DCD AEPi: I have no reason to believe racist actions don't take place at UVa
egb3r: Hate crime laws say "the current penalty for a crime needs to be made more harsh in these specific situations to prevent this potential danger that may or may not exist"
egb3r: Big difference.
DCD AEPi: I myself have never been a victim, but who am I to say it doesn't happen?
egb3r: There are assholes everywhere you go....but should being an asshole be illegal?
DCD AEPi: do assholes single out people based on their color, or religion or gender, no, they are just being assholes, but when your focus is directed upon a person based on one defining characteristic, of course penalties should be harsher
egb3r: The guys at SAE, were definitely ass-holes....when they called Steve "boy" I don't know if they were being racist or just assholes.....how do you prove it?
DCD AEPi: and we did have plenty of reason to believe the threat didn't exist, weapons were not found by UN inspectors
egb3r: Shouldn't we be more concerned that the crime happened period? Does it matter that someone got beat up because they were black, or does it matter that someone got beat up?
egb3r: Weapons also weren't found between 1991 and 1994 (96?) until an Iraqi scientist defected with all of his notes on what programs were active and where they were....
DCD AEPi: "boy" is just that, a word, some people might find it offensive, other might not, but there is no slippery slope on nigger, kike, chink, spic, etc....
egb3r: The same UN inspectors didn't find any evidence of a nuclear program in North Korea, and we all see how that one turned out...
DCD AEPi: I think the line is clearly drawn
egb3r: Fine....let's say they called him nigger....would that make them racists, or just assholes looking for the most convenient way to get under his skin?
egb3r: And, even if they were racists, would getting into a fight with him in that situation be a hate crime?
DCD AEPi: if someone just said something, no, because that's simply a mind game, but if someone attacked or defaced my property, which includes my body, yes it's a hate crime
DCD AEPi: some people use that word because they simply don't know any better..not making it right
DCD AEPi: it does matter if someone got beat up of another race, I wouldn't tolerate a gang of blacks that beat up a white dude
egb3r: Well, then you should be all kinds of mad at people in C'ville cause they rallied around a group of black HS youths who beat up six whites (and an Asian they thought was white) because they were white....three of the members even admitted to this...
egb3r: But the reaction of the C'ville community was to attempt to "understand what led to those boys doing what they did" and there are still others who think that blacks are incapable of committing a hate crime...
DCD AEPi: I feel hate crimes can be committed against any race..
DCD AEPi: just because you're in the minority doesn't allow exemption for intolerance and ignorance..
DCD AEPi: I think this amendment to the honor code would be better accepted if it was made known that this isn't about protecting blacks, or Hispanics or Asians, it's about protecting equal people, from those that seem to think based on a characteristic we are not
egb3r: Regardless of what it is made known, in practice it can, and probably will, be abused.
egb3r: Why not move all vandalism and abuse charges to the honor system?
DCD AEPi: what's not abused until a series of checks and balances are worked out..
egb3r: If it is that egregious of a crime, why not let anyone get away with it?
DCD AEPi: nothing is perfect the first time it rolls off the assembly line
DCD AEPi: my check is there has to be solid proof that this is a hate crime, if someone writes slut on a girl's dorm room door, I think that's just as bad...
egb3r: I ask again, why not just move all vandalism and physical abuse over to the honor system?
egb3r: Why is some kind of abuse different than other kinds of abuse? Why was Richard Smith beating up that kid (I forgot his name) any different than someone allegedly beating up Daisy Lundy?
DCD AEPi: because sometime people fight and do things under the influence of other things....like you said, if you're drunk, that's not an honor violation, that's just being stupid
DCD AEPi: what's the Richard smith story?
egb3r: You don't remember? He and a few friends beat up some first year (I think I was a third year and you were a fourth year at the time).....judish threw them out of school...
DCD AEPi: when I got into a fight last december, the guy attacked me because he was drunk, it was clear to everyone..he wasn't of sound mind
DCD AEPi: was he the gay guy?
egb3r: However, Richard Smith's dad is Fred Smith, who happens to be the founder of FedEx....so they sued the school, and the school caved and let the kids back in.
egb3r: He might have been gay, I don't remember.
egb3r: But I don't think they beat him up because he was gay....they beat him up because they were acting completely immature.
DCD AEPi: I’m 90% sure the kid they beat up was gay
DCD AEPi: to be honest, I don't want to comment on this, because, if the story as I heard it, with the student being gay, then potentially, it was an attack because the kid was gay..
DCD AEPi: I would have to research to be able to make a point one way or another
DCD AEPi: but let's say they were just acting immature, there is a catalyst for everything
DCD AEPi: be it alcohol, drugs, or someone expressing a thought that lead to this attack
egb3r: I have a more fundamental question for you.....
egb3r: You and I are walking down the street....
DCD AEPi: and not saying they should have beat up the kid, but if it was based on some hate based motive, yes it is worse than just being a dumbass
egb3r: A white supremacist comes up to us with a gun....
egb3r: He shoots you because you are black....
egb3r: He shoots me because I'm with you....
egb3r: Why should the penalty for killing you be worse than the penalty for killing me?
DCD AEPi: it shouldn't because your death was race based as well, for lack of a better term, you would be consider a n-lover, for your association
DCD AEPi: and I think the penalty should be just as stiff
DCD AEPi: AND....we could also base your death on being jewish as well...which is a religious based hate crime
egb3r: Why don't we have the penalty be just as stiff as it is for the guy who runs someone over while drunk driving as it is for the guy who kills his wife when he finds her in bed with another man as it is for the guy who shoots a rival drug dealer? Why aren't all deaths equal?
egb3r: How does the insane white supremacist know I'm jewish?
DCD AEPi: because this country doesn't have a history of people getting drunk to purposely run each other over, the guy who finds his adulterous wife is supposed to understand the legal system has been designed for him to get compensation in this situation if he were to stay level headed, and as for drug dealers, not saying I abide by this, but most law enforcement figures will say, hey, that guy did us a favor, that's one less drug dealer out there..
DCD AEPi: the jewish thing was a side point, maybe he heard me say your last name but regardless, killing you for being with me is a hate crime...he is devaluing you because you have a friendship with someone he is ignorant of
egb3r: Does it really matter why he killed me, or just that he did?
DCD AEPi: no and yes..
egb3r: As far as I'm aware, we increase penalties in this country for a few reasons, but most of them have to do with the severity of the crime....
DCD AEPi: a life is a life...but...because of the history of this country, you can't take that for granted
egb3r: We have the death penalty for pre-meditated murders because the killer went out and planned how to kill this person, not why he did it...
egb3r: WE have the death penalty for cop killers because cops are out on the front lines, getting shot at on a regular basis and purposefully put themselves in harms way....it also doesn't matter if the killer knew the victim was a cop, or shot him intentionally because he was a cop....it just matters that he killed a cop.
egb3r: What hate crimes do is make thought illegal, and I can never get behind that.
DCD AEPi: if we went to germany....and a neo nazi party jumped you and a wave of attacks on jews began taking place, and they were looked at as "normal" crimes, wouldn't you be worried that a nazi uprising were taking place? wouldn't you want to prevent that?
egb3r: Yes, I'd want to prevent that by putting the people who jumped in jail for assault or murder, and whatever other crimes they commit....
egb3r: It's not like they are going to just get a slap on the wrist if these new laws aren't in place.
DCD AEPi: but it doesn't further the point that what they are doing is wrong for reasons X,Y and Z
DCD AEPi: and in a county with a background of persecuting jews for no good reason, wouldn't you be concerned that if it happened once, it could potentially happen again?
egb3r: If they don't know that already, why would the harsher punishment change that?
egb3r: I don't hold out hope for neo-nazi's suddenly finding Jesus and realizing how stupid and wrong they are....
egb3r: And there are already punishments in place for the crimes they commit....
DCD AEPi: but it's not for the now, this is for the future..egb3r: If they are going to commit them, a harsher penalty won't deter them.
DCD AEPi: why don't we steal eric..egb3r: Because it's wrong.
DCD AEPi: because we were taught not to steal, and that it was wrong..
DCD AEPi: if people aren't taught that attacking another human simply based on race, religion, etc, they may not know it's wrong
egb3r: You hit the nail on the head....stealing is wrong....it's not that stealing from someone who doesn't look like you is worse than stealing from someone who does....stealing is wrong in general.
DCD AEPi: they might feel they are being cheated and that by killing one Asian, they are helping their children have a better future
egb3r: I really hope you're joking.
DCD AEPi: no I’m not, people who commit these crimes are ass backwards to begin withegb3r: So you're making it illegal to be ass backwards.
DCD AEPi: I’m making it illegal to kill someone for ass backwards reasons
egb3r: No, it's already illegal to kill someone.
egb3r: You're making it more illegal...and the only reason you're making it more illegal is because they are ass backwards...
egb3r: Hence, you are making it illegal to be assbackwards.
DCD AEPi: but some of those crimes are unintentional, most aren't premeditated, if you are killing someone for the simple fact that that person's background is taking your jobs, then that in my opinion is a worse crime
egb3r: Why is it worse? Isn't the result the same? The victim isn't any more or less dead.
DCD AEPi: it worse because of the thought behind it....free thought is one thing, acting irrationally based on that thought is another
egb3r: So it's okay to act irrationally in general, but not to act irrationally based on an irrational thought?
DCD AEPi: if being irrational doesn't cause harm to others, sure, act irrational
DCD AEPi: look, let's get back to basics, I’m not sure how much history about your own family's struggle with bigotry, and if you have heard stories that may have directly affected your fam in Germany, but I have heard some stories from my great grandparents, my great grandfather once told me a story about growing up in the South, and one white kid yelled to him saying "hey nigger!" and he yelled back "hey salt cracker!" and the white kid yelled back, "a cracker is good to eat, a nigger is good to beat!"
DCD AEPi: that mentality to me shows that hate based crimes were taught and people felt as if these crimes were acceptable based on who they were against, and I'll be damned if me, or my future family members have to endure anything close to that

You miss the point

2004-09-30T10:16:00.000-04:00

The accusation that John Kerry is a flip-flopper does not come from his statements/actions on all positions, but just the most important ones - and specifically, the Iraq war. Tell me what consistency exists in this history:

1991 - Opposed the Persian Gulf War
1998 - Backed the Iraqi Regime Change resolution that called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein
2002 - Authorized the President to go to enforce UN Resolutions against Iraq using military force (wow, two entries in a row that are consistent....don't go hoping this trend will continue)
2003 - Told Howard Dean that anyone who opposed the Iraq war did not have the capacity to be commander in chief
2003 - Voted against funding the Iraq war
2003 - Asserted that the only legitimate way to conduct military operations is with an international coalition similar to the one in the Persian Gulf War (which, by the way, he opposed)
2004 - Said that all servicemen killed in Iraq gave their lives for the greater war on terror
2004 - Said that Iraq was a distraction from the greater war on terror
2004 - Stole Howard Dean's line (the same Howard Dean who he said was not fit to be commander in chief) that the Iraq war was the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Does that seem consistent to you.

And you're right, on those other, somewhat less important issues, he does demonstrate remarkable consistency....sadly that consistency is of poor judgment.

On stem cell research? Kerry advocates going forward with reckless abandon because scientist tell him that stem cell research can only benefit humanity. In the 30's scientists told a European leader that they had a way to benefit humanity....all it required with removing all the Jews from Europe. Were scientists right then?

On social security? He won't raise the retirement age, and he won't cut benefits. So he will by definition have to raise taxes. This is pandering on its basest level (pandering W is also guilty of with the retarded prescription drug benefit)

On health care? His most consistent position is that he will not cap malpractice awards, because he wouldn't dare risk angering the key Democratic constituency of trial lawyers (of which, he is a proud member)

On Osama bin Laden? Any position other than that of the mainstream would automatically disqualify him from being President. Even he is not that silly.

On abortion? Whatever NARAL tells him to say. What a good little soldier he is.

etc.
etc.
etc.

And on Bush's lack of conservative bona fides, you're absolutely right. He did do all of those things, much to the consternation of much of his base. But, unfortunately we are faced with a binary election. Given the choice of being hit in the foot with a baseball bat, and hit in the head with the same bat, I'll be hit in the foot every time. At least I can survive that one.

W stands for "Who Says I'm Conservative?"

2004-09-30T01:05:00.000-04:00

In the interest of being fair and balanced, I thought I'd create an exciting George Bush game. Is George Bush compassionate? Ask an Iraqi civilian who was liberated from his house by a 500 pound bomb. Is he conservative? Let's find out! The game's called "Is George Bush Conservative Because He"

Is George Bush Conservative Because He...

Supported nation building at least twice?
Opposes raising the retirement age for Social Security?
Signed an $80 billion farm subsidy bill?
Signed McCain-Feingold?
Signed budgets that created the largest deficit in a generation?
Signed a huge increase in Medicare funding
Signed every bill that crossed his desk?
Created a massive new bureaucracy (Homeland Security), and is poised to create a second (Intelligence Coordinator)?
Backed steel tarrifs?
Sent a ton of money and mandates down to public schools?

This time, score 1 point for no and 0 points for yes. If you get a 7 or higher, George Bush is probably not conservative.

Exciting amusement opportunity

2004-09-29T16:45:00.000-04:00

The big game among republicans this election season is to pretend they don't know John Kerry's position on the issues. I'd bet a six pack that if you tied Eric up with Wonder Woman's golden lariat he could tell you Kerry's position on virtually every issue. Here's a sample quiz you can take in your head. It's yes/no. I call it "Do You Pretty Much Know Where Kerry Stands"

Do You Pretty Much Know Where Kerry Stands...

On stem cell research?
On social security?
On health care?
On Osama bin Laden?
On abortion?
On the environment?
On energy independence?
On gay marriage?
On gun control?
On tax policy?
On conducting the war in Iraq?

Score 1 point for yes, 0 points for no. If you got a 7 or higher, Kerry's probably not a flip flopper.

I am Raskolnikov....

2004-09-29T09:12:00.000-04:00

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but the bias in the Washington Post is reaching unprecedented levels of ridiculousness.

Seeing that President Bush's lead is solidifying, the Post's seriously-left-of-center political reporters and editors have ramped up their anti-Bush campaign. Yesterday, in an article discussing the results of the latest WP poll (showing Bush with a seven point lead among likely voters), the reporters basically stated as fact that Kerry's poor showing in the polls, voters lack of confidence in his decision making ability and overall poor opinion of him, have nothing to do with Kerry's own shortcomings, but rather the Bush machine's relentless attacks. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Kerry has no clearly defined position on matters of importance to the voters and given them no reason to vote for him, could it? John Rosenberg does a much better job discussing this here.

Dana Milbank, Bush-basher-in-chief at the WP, also chimed in, by picking up the horribly misleading and wholly irresponsible assertion by Joe Lockheart that Prime Minister Allawi is merely a Bush puppet. Milbank analyzed passages from Allawi's address to Congress and compared them to previous statements the President has made. Apparently Milbank was shocked, shocked I say, that they sounded very similar (here are you winnings Mr. Milbank). Well of course they are going to sound familiar. Bush and Allawi believe the same thing, namely that the Iraq war was worth fighting, and that, while we're in a very rough spot now, the future looks much better for the Iraqi people than it would have under Saddam Hussein. It would be like if I went through all of Milbank's writings and compared them to statements from John Kerry and his surrogates. Of course there are going to be similarities, but I won't be suprised by it.

In that same edition, in an article that was definitely news worthy and sure to win the paper a Pulitzer, the Post reported that John Kerry is now using humor on the campaign trail.

In other breaking news, the sun is going to come up tomorrow.

Today, the Post ran a series of articles trashing Bush's record on missile defense, saying that Kerry has adopted "adopting President Bush's strategy of playing on the public's security fears and sometimes using incendiary charges to stoke them" (It couldn't be that the public actually has security fears, and wants candidates to address them, could it?), and that a large majority of foreigners want Kerry to win (perhaps the least relevant statistic in the history of opinion polls).

This is also the same "Independent Newspaper" that has its website sponsored by the Kerry campaign and MoveOn.org.

I have no problem with news organizations adopting a position on various policy questions. I am, after all, an avid reader of the Weekly Standard. I just have a problem with the paper attempting to masquerade as neutral or unbiased. They should come right out and declare that, rather than presenting a straightforward version of relatively important events of the day, they are going to advocate a position. What's so wrong with that?

Party Inclusiveness/Abortion

2004-09-10T15:50:00.000-04:00

egb3r: So right now I'm arguing with Narc about how the republican party is actually the more inclusive of the two...
egb3r: It's actually pretty fun.
DCD AEPi: how is it more inclusive?
egb3r: My post to him:How many pro-life, anti-affirmative action, pro-traditional marriage people will be as popular with Dems as Giuliani, Schwazenegger, Powell and McCain (and others) are with Republicans?
egb3r: The fact of the matter is that the republican party is the party of varying view points around a few core issues (strong economy, individual rights), while the democrats are little more than the political arm of NARAL.
DCD AEPi: are you saying the republican party is more accepting of moderates than the democratic party is?
egb3r: I'm saying there is a greater diversity of ideas among Republicans (especially at the top) than among Democrats, but most people haven't caught onto this fact....
egb3r: In fact, the Democrats attempt to portray that as a weakness of the Republicans (Hillary Stalin's "bait-and-switch" comment being the most egregious).
egb3r: Show me one influential Democrat who is pro-life.
egb3r: Just one.
egb3r: Anyone who is pro-life is persona non grata in the Democratic party....it's a litmus test.
egb3r: Show me a Democrat who is opposed to affirmative action.
egb3r: (Other than you)
DCD AEPi: championing those members of the republican party doesn't discredit the democratic party, the democratic party has people that are on every side of the coin too, the point is that we simply accept that every should have the choice to make their own decisions, i'm sure they are high profile dems that are personally pro life, but what is best for the nation is to respect the choice of women and families that are pro choice
DCD AEPi: and I can't remember the last time "affirmative action" was even discussed by democrats, although the basis of it still may be around, t I think the term affirmative action is dying
egb3r: If there are so many members of the Democratic party who feel that abortion should be illegal, why can't you name one prominent one?
DCD AEPi: because they are preaching the values they hold to themselves, they are preaching the right of the individual
egb3r: By saying "we simply accept", it's a tacit implication that there is no dissent in the party.
DCD AEPi: politicians make decisions based on the good of the people...not on what is personally best or ideal for them
egb3r: Yes, but there are plenty of right thinking people in the world who think that abortion should be illegal no matter what....that's what defines being pro-life versus pro-choice....I want to know why the Democratic party, the "party of inclusiveness" does not welcome those people.
DCD AEPi: I personally would like to think I'm pro-life, but I'm not the 15 year old girl who got raped and in turn pregnant who isn't ready for a child
egb3r: I'm not talking about which ideology is correct, better, etc....I just want to know where this "other side of the coin" is in the Democratic party....that's all.
egb3r: Please prove my "political arm of NARAL" comment to be false.
DCD AEPi: this is the only time I will ever say something with any sort of true backing, simply because pro choice is the only side to realistically be on, if you support free and individual rights, specifically of women
egb3r: So you're saying it's impossible for a right thinking person to be pro-life?
DCD AEPi: I’m saying if you believe in the values of that this country has been built upon, and you true feel as if we fight everyday in places like Iraq to maintain these freedoms, no one has a right to say whether or not a woman has to carry a child
egb3r: So you're saying it's unpatriotic and un-American to be pro-life????
DCD AEPi: I’m not getting trapped into that one..
egb3r: It's not a trap! It's the logical extension of what you just typed!
egb3r: By that logic, any man has the right to not want to care for a child he fathered, so you're against criminal and civil penalties that enforce child support, right?
DCD AEPi: i'm saying I think people aren't interpreting the bases of what we believe as Americans..
egb3r: And it has an inherent assumption that life begins at birth.
DCD AEPi: no no no...you're mistaking a father not taking responsibility as opposed to a single mother or a couple, taking a severe responsibility by not ruining a life that has no hope
egb3r: So it only matters if the mother doesn't want the child. The father has no say.
DCD AEPi: I said single mothers, inferring that a woman was raped, or the father abandoned her, that's why I included couples
egb3r: But she can still sue the father for child support....him abandoning her is a pretty clear sign that he doesn't want the child....if she wants to keep it, do you think he should be subject to legal action forcing him to care for a child he didn't want to have?
DCD AEPi: of course...and this is where there is a slippery slope in my thinking..
DCD AEPi: I really think abortion should be used in extreme situations, such as rape, or as a condom broke, something of that matter...
DCD AEPi: but if you do the crime, and get a girl pregnant, and knowing that you may be a father, once you participate in that act, you have to take the responsibility of knowing you may be a father afterwards..
DCD AEPi: so if the child is born, yes you must take responsibility and pay child support
egb3r: This is the problem I have always had with the pro-abortion argument....always willing to split hairs and illogical to a fault....yes, if a woman is raped or her life is in mortal danger from the pregnancy, it gets significantly more complicated because in those situations the woman was a passive actor in the situation....however, in every other situation where an abortion takes place, the abortion is a way for the woman to avoid the consequences of an action she took (right or wrong, good or bad, that's what it is).....I don't understand why it's okay for a woman to kill a child by having an abortion but considered murder if she has the child in an alley and leaves it in a garbage dumpster.....both actions are the same thing....why should they be treated differently?egb3r: So, in essence, you are saying that if a woman makes a mistake and fucks someone she shouldn't have, she can get rid of the problem with an abortion without the consent of the father, but the man who makes the very same mistake has no such right?
DCD AEPi: they aren't the same thing, if a being is not aware of it's own life, there is no harm...a just born baby has the sensory to know that it is functioning in the world
egb3r: I'm on firm logical footing here.....what's right for one person has to be default be right for everyone....so why doesn't everyone have the right to extricate themselves permanently from the life of this child?
egb3r: No it doesn't.
DCD AEPi: I think the father should have a say in this as well....the problem is, men can walk away from pregnant women, women can't walk away from themselves
egb3r: And no one knows about the sentient/not sentient nature of embryos and feti (is that the correct plural) cause it's not like we can ask them....brain activity starts pretty early in a fetus.
DCD AEPi: what do you mean no it doesn’t, it has a sense of touch, sight, smell, hearing.
egb3r: It has all those senses in the womb too, it just doesn't have the same environment.
DCD AEPi: it's taking in information not necessarily processed, but still taking it in
egb3r: They don't just turn on a like a light switch when the kid pops out.
egb3r: And, getting back to your earlier comment, the woman can "walk away from herself" by having the abortion....if you are for giving her that right, why aren't you for giving a man the same right?
DCD AEPi: I said she "can't"
egb3r: I know you said she can't, but the abortion gives her the ability to.
egb3r: It turns the can't into a can.
DCD AEPi: when a baby is born, they move their heads towards sounds, they grab fingers, they cry when they are hungry...obviously at some point this happens before they pop out, but there is a period, and from what I gather, the first trimester, when they don't have this
DCD AEPi: yes, if she is unfit, if the father left her, if knowingly, a couple realizes that bringing this child in the world would be a tragedy for it
DCD AEPi: see, I get your point, abortion is abused..
DCD AEPi: and that's a fact...
DCD AEPi: I don't deny that
egb3r: But she can do that even if she isn't unfit, if the father didn't leave her (and even protests the abortion plan) or if the couple thinks that everything is hunky dory....all abortions don't only happen in hard luck circumstances.
DCD AEPi: but I’m not willing to take away this choice just because some people don't use it the right way
egb3r: Let's say that no matter what, women who get pregnant because they are raped, or because their life will be in mortal danger by having the baby, get to have abortions (I just want to get rid of the complicated stuff to make the discussion a little easier)....
DCD AEPi: I think my comments agree with your statement....but this is something where everyone has to evaluate, is the wrongful use of this procedure worth the 1) the freedom of choice this country is founded on, 2) those people that are in hard luck situations who would benefit from this
egb3r: Are you still for legalized abortion?
egb3r: Two things:
egb3r: 1) (To steal a really bad rhyme) Adoption is an option
DCD AEPi: yes...because I’m a firm believer that child are hard luck stories too, and I don't think a 14 year old should be punished with a child because she didn't know better
egb3r: 2) Why shouldn't people have to deal with the consequences of their actions?
DCD AEPi: not only is the 14 year old punished, so is the baby to be born
egb3r: She can always give it up for adoption? There are literally thousands of families in the country looking to adopt children.
DCD AEPi: I don't think you understand the emotional attachment women get to unborn babies..
egb3r: I definitely do.
DCD AEPi: people keep babies not because it's the best option, but because of the maternal nature of having something in your womb for 9 months
egb3r: But if they think it's going to be such a burden on them, why wouldn't they make the smart choice and give it up?
DCD AEPi: I’m not a woman, I can't answer that question
egb3r: I'd rather give a kid a chance than kill it before it has one.
DCD AEPi: I’m never going to be able to answer that
DCD AEPi: and you really think all these kids will have a chance...they won't...
egb3r: I don't think they all will have a chance, no.
egb3r: But a lot of them will....especially if we can improve infrastructure and give people everywhere hope again.
egb3r: Get people out of thinking that they are stuck in the rut they are in....
egb3r: Put the emphasis back on education and off of violence and thuggery.
egb3r: Eliminate this completely ridiculous notion that you are not an individual but rather a member of a victim group....
egb3r: We do that, and a lot more of those kids WILL have a chance
egb3r: Every child is a blank slate.
DCD AEPi: how are you gonna get out of the rut when you're 16, have a 2 year old, can finish high school, etc
egb3r: They can be president, or they can go to jail! It's not just what they are born into but how they are raised and the decisions they make that decide the rest.
DCD AEPi: a blank slate is a stalemate in my opinion
DCD AEPi: you can argue someone’s aborted kid would be the next charles manson
DCD AEPi: and if that blank slate is placed in a terrible surrounding, the majority says it's going to go the wrong route
egb3r: That's where the second part of my diatribe came in....we need to keep these kids alive and then do everything we can to make sure they are given the opportunity to go down the right path.
egb3r: Abortion as an issue does not exist in a vacuum.
egb3r: I will wholly accept the criticism leveled at a lot of pro-lifers who want to make abortion illegal but also want to abandon all social services....
DCD AEPi: well, that's all well and good, but until programs to provide children with that opportunity, it's a moot point
egb3r: There was a governor of Pa (the political mentor to James Carville and Paul Begala no less) who was ardently pro-life and ardently for social services that would help those kids and those single mothers....
egb3r: If it's done in the right way, I don't know why everyone can't be behind that.
egb3r: And he was shunned by the Democratic party.
egb3r: That's what I mean when I say that the Dems have a litmus test for acceptance
egb3r: (which, I know it's hard to recall, is the whole reason we started having this conversation).
DCD AEPi: maybe it is...but it's out of the notion that people should have options, it's not about limiting someone's choice...
DCD AEPi: and I think being pro-choice actually allows more to be under the umbrella
egb3r: You're looking at the wrong question....
DCD AEPi: just because you're pro life doesn't mean you are going to have an abortion or even want people to have them, but you're not stopping someone from it
egb3r: The question pro-life/pro-choice answers isn't about abortion, it's about the right to an abortion....
DCD AEPi: you're saying being pro life is wrong in the democratic party
DCD AEPi: period..
DCD AEPi: and if it is...so be it..Because being pro-choice gives people the same option to be pro lifeegb3r: I'm saying that if you are against a woman's right to have an abortion than you will be castrated and hanged at any collection of more than 100 democrats, yes.
DCD AEPi: because it's about the ideal, not the act...
DCD AEPi: the same goes along with gay marriage..
egb3r: Supporting the option that allows for the most points of view does not necessarily mean that you are tolerant of all points of view and an inclusive party....
egb3r: If that were the case than the most inclusive party would be the libertarians.
DCD AEPi: the democratic party is simply saying, we know that we don't have the right to make this choice for a woman, or couple, if you're pro life, that's great, but don't tell someone they can't be pro choice..
egb3r: So that's being intolerant of pro-lifers.
DCD AEPi: not even pro choice, don't tell them they are wrong for making a decision based on their own life and experiences
egb3r: The republican party is the exact opposite....there's a group of people who think that abortion is murder and think it should be illegal, and there's a group of people who think there are instances where it should be allowed....
egb3r: And they are all welcome in the party.
egb3r: That is NOT the case with the Dems.
DCD AEPi: it's not being intolerant, it's stating that people that are personally pro life can stand with us, that's their decision, but don't make it a point to tell someone else that you don't know, whose circumstances are unknown, that they can't have an abortion
egb3r: But, being pro-life means that you think it should be illegal.
egb3r: That is the political definition of the term.
DCD AEPi: because being pro life directly affects someone else's god given freedoms
egb3r: So does taxation.
egb3r: So does any number of things.
DCD AEPi: taxation provides the public with goods...
egb3r: And, the point can be made, that being pro-life helps protect the god-given freedoms of the unborn.
DCD AEPi: taxation pays for things we use everyday
DCD AEPi: taxation takes care of everything we as individuals can't..
egb3r: And abortion SAVES LIVES.
DCD AEPi: until the unborn has the ability to take in information, it doesn’t have the right to choice...
DCD AEPi: it's still part of the woman, not an entity living off of it

Unfortunately, this convo was cut "short" because the day was coming to a close....

The Convention, Iraq and more....

2004-09-01T12:20:00.000-04:00

DCD AEPi: so on to the RNC...what did you think?

egb3r: I liked Arnold's speech a lot because it did exactly what it had to do, which is sell his biography as something that is very compatible with the Republican party. And the part of his speech where he enumerated what the Republicans stood for was key....The only problem is that the only people who were watching were probably already republicans. Your thoughts?

DCD AEPi: the Lt Gov. from Maryland I didn't care for...

egb3r: You didn't like him? I thought his speech was pretty good.

DCD AEPi: Arnold was good, but I thought what he was saying defines a republican was so general, I thought what he said defined what an American or a patriot should be, not necessary the differences between a republican and a democrat

egb3r: I'm going to disagree with your characterization of Arnold's speech....save for the "government beholden to the people v people beholden to the government" line, I think the differences he enumerated were pretty accurate.

DCD AEPi: he made all these claims about Kerry's voting record, which in fact is probably true, he didn't vote for many of the items on the floor, the problem is that most people probably didn't realize he may not have voted against them either. Not saying that abstaining is any better or simply not being there to vote is good, but he may not have voted no on these items. You don't think dems want to fight terrorism?
DCD AEPi: other than the support for the bush tax cuts, I think the speech was very general

egb3r: My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? Well, I tell you how. If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.

If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.

If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.

If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.

If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican.

And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe that we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican.

egb3r: The last two points are legitimate areas of criticism for the Democratic Party.... Whether or not the dems want to admit it, every Democratic president since Harry Truman left office has gotten foreign policy wrong....

DCD AEPi: true the UN thing is a republican ideal, which is something I disagree with

egb3r: And John Kerry doesn't strike me as someone who would reverse this trend.

DCD AEPi: I’m not saying he could...but I still support a more unified world wide coalition

egb3r: What exactly does that involve? Other than France and Germany, what countries do you want to be fighting with us that aren't? The Brits? They're already on board. The Aussies and Japs are there too. So are the Paks and the Saudis. The Italians. The Poles. And the Spaniards were until they literally let the terrorists win. You think Mighty Mighty Belgium would make an effective coalition member? Or what about Luxemburg? I always value their opinion on international matters.

DCD AEPi: That's not the point Eric...the problem is that the US isn't supposed to be a bully...it's not about who is already with us, it's about respecting the concept of the UN...and the fact that France and Germany felt strong armed instead of convinced. Yes we are the policemen of the world, but the way things went about in the UN was clearly flawed

egb3r: Please explain to me how US foreign policy of removing dictators who are a threat to their country, the region and the world equates with being a bully?

DCD AEPi: look, I supported the war, but at this particular time, the UN may have been right, and I’m not flip flopping, but nothing was found in terms of WMDs...

egb3r: Regardless of what you know now, do you actually trust the UN to determine whether a country reluctant to cooperate with inspectors is WMD free, considering that North Korea and Iran both happened while UN inspections were going on!?!?

DCD AEPi: I said I'm not flip flopping on the issue, I was in support of it based on the potential link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but facts presented were unfounded, WMDs were not discovered, and soldiers are dying practically every day....I’m just saying, had the US been more patient, perhaps controversy would have been avoided and lives would have been saved

egb3r: It's interesting that you say "lives would have been saved".... Because many, many eminent scholars feel that tens of thousands more lives have been saved than lost since Saddam is out of business, his people are actually able to get food, no more torture chambers, death squads, etc....So, is your position that saving the lives of ten American soldiers is more important that those soldiers sacrificing their lives to save 1,000 Iraqis? I know you're not being a flip-flopper, but I'm trying to understand the distinction of that last point.

DCD AEPi: At a cost of American lives....look, here's what I'm saying, like I said before, I fully supported the war, and in many instances I still think it's the right thing, but the logic behind was completely wrong...the ends have been good, but the original decision to go after Saddam was unjust

egb3r: So, on the "had you known then what you know now" question, your answer would have been "no, I wouldn't have supported the military action"?

DCD AEPi: not based on the reasoning behind it...had it been dubbed as a humanitarian effort, which it ended up being, yes, people should not be suffering, but the fact reminds, the truth was shrouded, and the administration used a concept that scared people into thinking this is why the US needs to go into Iraq, when in fact our reasoning was flawed

egb3r: a) The reasoning wasn't flawed, the evidence was flawed b) In their zeal to make Bush look bad during the Kay testimony, the media missed the most important thing said during that testimony, namely that, despite our misinterpretation of the intelligence and our miscalculation, Iraq's weapons program was actually more dangerous to the US than we thought. c) The world was getting ready to do business with Saddam again....France was pressuring the UN to lift all sanctions against Saddam, saying he was effectively in his box for good due to the US/British presence in the region, and once those were gone France would go back to arming Saddam and giving him WMD dual use technology like they did during the 70's and 80's.

DCD AEPi: you can have all the weapons programs you want, until they are developed, they is no evidence that these weapons were going to be used

egb3r: So, what is the DCD standard for intervention? At what point in a countries development should military action become necessary to keep us safe? What are the triggers that signal an end to all diplomatic options?

DCD AEPi: Iraq didn't do anything though....no matter how much I despise Saddam, there was no evidence that he was going to attack us, are you saying that other countries don't have a right to arm themselves? The US is the only country which is allowed to have arms and once another country gains weapons, we have to right to say you don't deserve to protect yourself? this isn't an issue of what I might possibly be afraid of, do I want the US to be attacked, no, do I want are innocents to die, no, but whatever we have the right to do, other countries should have that right as well

egb3r: So you believe every country has the right to develop nuclear arms? Does every country have the right to kill its own citizens en masse, since the definition of government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force?

DCD AEPi: it a perfect world, yes, ever country should have that right, unfortunately, most countries don't know how to use them, but the problem simply is, Iraq didn't have them....and no every country should not have the right to kill it's people, but that wasn't the nature of the mission. Saving the Iraqi people was an added bonus to what the war was trying to accomplish

egb3r: I'm not disagreeing with that point. My assertion is that there is little to no difference between Saddam actually having WMD and him seeking to acquire WMD, since the only reason you seek to acquire them when you are not in a mutually assured destruction scenario is to use them or threaten to use them to gain regional influence.

DCD AEPi: you bring up a valid point, which I don't think anyone can answer other than Saddam...just a footnote, I’m not trying to sound anti-American here...regardless of who is in power, I will support any war at the point of initiation...that's what a good american does...but, I think it would be wrong not to lookback on things and understand the true nature of the beast once more information is offered

egb3r: Agreed....I'm not questioning your patriotism, just your interpretation of the facts. There are many points of legitimate criticism about the war, specifically the Abu Ghraib thing, general post war planning, Rumsfeld publicly berating Gen. Sanchez when he said it will take a 250k occupation force to keep the country....But I do not and will not accept the notion that there is a significant distinction between Saddam actually having weapons and him looking to possess them. There are many lessons to be learned from this conflict, military and political, but why we went to war shouldn't be one of them.

DCD AEPi: would he have used these weapons against the US knowing the retaliation would have been 3 fold and possibly started a 3rd world war, I don't think any politician is crazy enough to do that in this day and age

egb3r: I disagree....Once you're in the nuclear club, you're in the nuclear club and no one dares attack you because you have that capability.... What kind of a position would the US have been in if Saddam had a nuke and then invaded Kuwait again? Would we have been able to effectively mount a military resistance knowing he could have, and probably would have, launched a war head at Tel Aviv?

DCD AEPi: you know me, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but I think you have to give other countries the benefit of the doubt before action is taken against it...

egb3r: Yes, you give countries the benefit of the doubt the first time, not the 17th.

DCD AEPi: but he would know the repercussions....he can hide in all the bunkers he wants, if the US nukes Iraq, he's dead....and, this is one thing I do actually appreciate about having bush as an aggressive commander in chief, he would have blown Iraq off the map if that happened

egb3r: The US will never use nuclear weapons in war unless we are specifically attacked via unconventional weapons....They were actually talking about using small nukes in Afghanistan and decided it against it.....if you don't use them in response to 9/11, you probably never will.

DCD AEPi: they couldn't use them after 9/11, they had no specific target...if they did, Osama would have been captured

egb3r: Sure they had a specific target....we knew where all the Al Qaeda camps were in Afghanistan....we knew where most of bin Laden's hide outs were. We just didn't know who would be where and when.

DCD AEPi: that's not specific information, the US had specific info when they captured Saddam...you can't justify using the weapons on a hunch...if they nuked parts of Afghanistan and one of those Bid Laden tapes came out 3 weeks later, how f'ed up would that be?

egb3r: Well, if the Bush doctrine was that countries that harbor terrorists are as culpable as the terrorists themselves, then it wouldn't have mattered.

DCD AEPi: you can't use that reasoning to justify the act to the rest of the world

egb3r: So why would we be able to threaten Saddam with nuclear retaliation if he didn't specifically nuke us?

DCD AEPi: because his actions are then a direct threat to the safety of the world....I know it's better to be preventative than to wait for something to happen, and that's your point, but I don't think you can invade a country's sovereignty until they actually do something that proves without a doubt that this country is a threat to world peace

egb3r: Ummmm....see Iraqi activity 1991-2003.

DCD AEPi: they didn't nuke anyone though....and they weren't a direct threat to the powers of the world, US, China, Russia, GB, etc

egb3r: Why do you need to be a direct threat to the powers of the world, rather than your region (which Saddam was), to warrant intervention? Do me a favor then....Justify the Bosnian intervention using the rationale you have posited in this discussion.

DCD AEPi: I don't justify it

egb3r: Do you think it was as wrong as the Iraq intervention then?

DCD AEPi: the reason why the Bosnian intervention went over so well was due to the term ethnic cleansing, throw that into any turmoil and people will support it

egb3r: There was sustained (like a decade) ethnic cleansing of the Iraqi Kurds, which would have been much worse had the US and the Brits not been enforcing the no fly zones (which would have been done away with along with the sanctions had the French and Russians had their way).

DCD AEPi: and had the administration used that as a power point along with their other points, I think people would be less critical...but all we heard was WMDs

egb3r: I think that's all the media focused on....people in the administration say that liberating the Iraqi people was just as important in their calculations.

DCD AEPi: perhaps you are right...but I seriously think the UN and the liberal side of America would have been less critical now had more focus been given to freeing the people of Iraq....butt the media simply through the desire to find WMDs and then not finding WMDs in our faces all the time

egb3r: Seriously, at the end of the day, do you really care what the UN thinks?

DCD AEPi: in terms of foreign policy, yes....we don't live on planet America

egb3r: The UN has passed god knows how many resolutions denouncing Israeli conduct, but has not said a word about Palestinian terrorism. It supports brutal dictatorial regimes in Africa. Is the opinion of this body something that needs to be taken seriously?

DCD AEPi: you make a good point, but don't you have to involve yourself in something to make a change within them?

egb3r: We're not disengaged....
egb3r: We gave it our best shot....
egb3r: Presented the evidence
egb3r: Presented the rationale...
egb3r: They didn't listen....
egb3r: The UN being obstinate does not change the facts on the ground, so it should not change our response to them. This is not a politically or morally relativistic world we live in, despite what a lot of international diplomats would have us think. Why go back begging for an 18th resolution when France states flat out that they are going to veto it? Are we really the ones being stubborn at that point if they refuse to listen to the evidence? The people against war do not have virtue on their side by default....that's a subtlety a lot of the liberal left misses.

DCD AEPi: that's interesting...

egb3r: ?

DCD AEPi: out of all the comments you have made, the virtue comment actually hit a chord the hardest. You've got me at a crossroads now Eric....

egb3r: That's why we have these chats....

DCD AEPi: I’m a firm believer in the global community acting as a unit and making decisions that would in turn lead to a better more prosperous, communicative, and peaceful world, but why support an organization that has member that take measures against that? Unfortunately, there is no other alternative to the UN...there isn't a second governing body that encompasses all the nations of the world...

egb3r: I completely agree....But the UN has turned itself from an effective body, that helped the Cold War stay cold on god knows how many occasions, to a politically and morally corrupt League of Nations that can do nothing more than debate virtues of various issues without taking a true, meaningful position.

DCD AEPi: but the US doesn't make it any better by defying it? It just turns into a rogue nation

egb3r: What's worse? Doing what's unpopular but right, or doing the popular thing that is wrong? That's what I meant by my "relativistic world" comment....what's right is right, whether or not other countries agree.

DCD AEPi: you know what my answer is....but sometimes it's not just as black and white as you're making it sound

egb3r: There definitely is a lot of grey involved, but at the end of the day you have to make a decision. And the gray in the Iraq situation was a lot darker than it was light.

DCD AEPi: it's funny, in high school, I participated in model UN, and I had this great idea of how the world was supposed to work, until one country would always be a jackass and totally shred a perfectly rational resolution just to get an award...and I would think that the real UN was more diplomatic and would be more understanding of things that are necessary to improve the status of the world in general...I guess I was wrong

egb3r: You're not wrong, but you need to listen to yourself on that one.....the world is not as black and white as you think. Look at the oil for food scandal....That program had the great intention of keeping Hussein contained while trying to mitigate the suffering of ordinary Iraqis....However, thanks to Hussein's megalomaniacal personality and the greed of UN officials, it went horribly wrong.

Why I Fear a John Kerry Presidency

2004-08-02T15:14:00.000-04:00

It’s important to understand something many political pundits have already observed: If you sit down and really study what the candidates are saying on the campaign trail, you’ll be hard pressed to find many differences on the major issues. Both will keep troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future; both will continue vigorously prosecuting the war on terror; both will look to cut taxes, reinforce our educational system and grow the economy. Sure, there key differences on details, direction and implementation of these ideas, but, they really seem to agree on the big picture. The reason I’m afraid of the John Kerry presidency is because of how he will get there. While I have no hard polling data to rely on, I’d be willing to bet a good amount of money that the views Bush is espousing on the campaign trail are much more closely aligned with those of people who will vote for him than Kerry’s are with his supporters. Kerry seems to be popular in the Democratic party simply because he is not George Bush. Don’t get me wrong; I know that dislike-bordering-on-hate is a very powerful motivator, and may just get John Kerry elected. But how is he going to act once the party is over? I know I’m not the first one to have this thought, but what is John Kerry going to do when the Dennis-Kucinich-led-anti-war faction of the party comes to him and demands that he reduce or eliminate the US presence in Iraq, (perhaps rightly) claiming that the only reason he is in the Oval Office is because they voted for him rather than Nader? What will John Kerry’s response be to Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups come to collect on their support for him in 2004, threatening to withhold it (or worse, endorse a primary challenger) come 2008? Which John Kerry will we see then: The tough-talking centrist, or the Massachusetts liberal who will say and do anything to rhetorically satisfy as many constituencies as possible?

At least, for the most part, George Bush is the devil I know. He formulates his world view, expresses ideas and acts on them in a reasonably consistent manner, and lets people know when his world view has changed (e.g. on the 2000 campaign trail he repeatedly denounced most military action and “nation building”, but, after September 11, as expressed in his September 22, 2001 congressional address, has determined that military action resulting in nation building is essential to American security). Sure, he has played the political game on steel tariffs, campaign finance reform, government spending checks, etc., but the feeling I get from examining his record and listening to him speak is that I will know where he stands when the rubber hits the road. I have no such confidence in John Kerry.

And that is why the specter of his presidency concerns me.

GO AWAY JESSE!!!!

2004-07-28T09:15:00.000-04:00

As a member of the black community, I’m sure many people of my race would be very upset to read these words, but I am really getting fed up with Jesse Jackson. On the front page of today’s Boston Herald, which is the #2 newspaper in Boston, the equivalent of NYC’s Post, Jesse was clamoring that Boston hasn’t done enough to erase the racial history of the past and progress to create more racial harmony. Having grown up in the city of Boston and having spent countless days in the city after having moved to the suburbs, I find a great deal of acceptance and love within Boston. I am sure that there are people that still practice ignorance, but you will find that in the most diverse cities in the country. But I digress, the point of this post was to discuss the comments I heard on the news this morning from Boston’s mayor, Tom Menino. A local news anchor asked the mayor if Jesse had ever contacted him to discuss ways to improve race relations in the city. Mayor Menino said he has never spoken or had any correspondence with Jackson, that “he(Jackson) had lost his number.” The Mayor continued that Jesse breezed through Boston, wasn’t getting enough attention, made some comments and will breeze out to his next city riding on a wave of controversy. I respect Jackson for being at the forefront of the fight for racial equality, but, his days of being a crusader have long been over, and he is simply a man desperate to create a media frenzy and have his name attached to it. When Bill Cosby made his comments about a month ago, at a forum where Jackson was present, and personally I do agree with most if not all of Cosby’s remarks, Jackson said nothing to defend or dispute Cosby, and why? Because if he agreed with Cosby, his own legacy would be destroyed, having had Cosby say things that blacks have needed to hear for years, but Jackson was too afraid to agree with Cosby because he was concerned the community would turn against him, for not understanding where the community is coming from, and if he disagreed with Cosby, he would have created a huge riff within the black community, and he’s supposed to be an advocate for a united community and a united nation. Jackson’s only focus is himself. He uses the platform of being a racial unifier to simply get on a soap box and preach, but instead of stepping up and actually making the tough decisions, or saying the unpopular but correct thing, or staying in the background when he isn’t needed, he can’t do that. There are plenty of black leaders both to the right and left that can and should take his place. Anyway, I’m sure Eric will be more than willing to add to the list of Jackson’s flaws in his own post, if he so chooses to post.

A plea to the ABB'ers of the World

2004-07-27T10:52:00.000-04:00

To whom it may concern-

I get it. You hate George Bush. You will latch on to anything and everything that could possibly make him or Dick Cheney look bad (let's see how many times we can say Haliburton in two minutes!). But please, please, PLEASE do not believe John Kerry's bluster about how he plans to change America's foreign policy, specifically regarding Iraq. You can question whether or not there would have been an Iraq war under a Kerry presidency, and whether the post-conflict operations and logistics would have been the same, but the reaction of the international community would have been exactly the same.

Let's look at a few of Kerry's assertions:
- He would internationalize the Iraq effort, specifically by returning to the United Nations for security council support. I wonder why Kerry thinks that his efforts would have a different outcome than those of the Bush administration. The French objection to the use of force in Iraq was not based on Chirac's relationship with Bush, but Chirac's relationship with Saddam (he was Saddam's bag man for the French Defense industry during the 70's and 80's, and still retained close ties to him until the day the war started) and France's heavy relience on Iraqi oil. The French were actually working to have the UN sanctions against Iraq lifted, so they could again begin arming the Iraqi army and providing Saddam with dual use technology to reconsititute his weaposn programs. The French, German and Russian diplomats also were growing fat off of kickbacks from the oil-for-food scandal, so that may have clouded their worldview just a wee bit. I guess now that the cat is out of the bag on that particular arrangement, they may change their mind, but I doubt it.

-He would DEMAND that NATO troops be involved in Iraq. Same problem as above. In fact, before the conflict Turkey, a NATO member, actually invoked the mutual defense clause of the NATO charter when they were requesting NATO defensive weaponry to gaurd against a possible Saddam counter-attack. Again, Germany and mighty mighty Belgium opposed this, perhaps relegating the historic fifty year Atlantic alliance to nothing more than League of Nations lite.

Hate George Bush, that's fine. Think he and politically biased supreme court stole the presidency from Al Gore. You're entitled to that opinion. But, I implore you, look critically at those you support as well so he will at least be the devil you know.

Reading with a critical eye....

2004-07-27T10:39:00.000-04:00

On the front page of today's Washington Post, along with all the Democratic PR literature (what exactly is a ringing call for change?), the results of a Kerry-related poll are posted. At first glance it looks like your standard "How well do you know candidate X" poll, with the results delivered in a neat little pie chart. Now, I hate polls so normally I wouldn't even look at the results, but something caught my eye in this one. The question offered four choices to the "How much do you feel you know about Kerry's positions on specific issues" question: a great deal, a good amount, only some or hardly anything. Aside from this question being very loaded (an unfortunate characteristic of most opinion polls), the results on the chart are grouped together. 54% of respondents answered some or hardly anything, while 46% answered either a great deal or a good amount. Why group them? Four distinct answers were offered, so why not offer the readers the most accurate picture of the responses? Did "a great deal" only receive two or three percent? Was "Hardly Anything" over 50%? What information is the Post trying to hide?

The lesson here, as always, is that 99.999% of the times, polls and the results published by those who conduct them, are dumb. Please don't pay attention to them. Please.

Welfare vs. Social Repsonsibility

2004-07-26T15:21:00.000-04:00

So over the weekend, I was driving some friends of mine to a bar in the city, the city was mobbed with people, even at 11pm, being that the DNC is in town this week. So naturally, the conversation turned to politics, and who is a Republican and who is a Democrat in the car, which ended up being split 2 to 2. So one guy yells, “What do you think about welfare?” Just a general question, which began a debate. One side being that working people shouldn’t support others that do not contribute to society at all, and the other being that everyone needs a helping hand at one point of another in their life, sometimes more than others. Which sparked my mind, and I came to my own conclusions on this system. Welfare is necessary, plain and simple. Many people simply do not have the privileges and advantages so many of us take for granted, and giving these people support in a time of need will allow them to make improvements without letting their family go hungry or not being able to pay the rent. The problem isn’t with the system; the problem is with the social dynamics of it. Although I am not statistically versed on the ratio of people with this particular situation, when a single parent has to raise 6 children, that leaves little time to get a job and be productive. Now, I’m not saying single parents haven’t been able to work and maintain a household for their family. It is definitely possible with one or two children, and maybe even with three, but once you get to that fourth child, unless the age range is great enough that the oldest is responsible enough to look after the youngest, or other family members pitch in, it extremely difficult to work and raise these children. So, to be blunt, it comes down to something I have said a long time ago, “Stop f’in!!!” Or at least use contraception, seriously, how on Earth can anyone get off of welfare if all they are doing in shooting out kids? And I hope everyone potentially reading this realizes this is not directed at one race or one region of the country. Sure, many of us stereotype this to be poor, inner city minorities, but go out to the sticks, where they have no access to technology or any sort of advancements most of us urban and suburbanites use every day, and I guarantee that families are living in trailers or make shift houses, with 5 kids, watching Jerry Springer all day. Okay, now maybe I’m stereotyping, but I have heard from people from good families that live on the outskirts of towns that there is nothing to do but drink and have sex, and the drunk 16 year old isn’t thinking about “pulling out” at the end. So the next debate is how to prevent all this reproduction, and sadly, that is something I can’t answer.

You have too much faith

2004-07-21T09:35:00.000-04:00

You have too much faith in the average voter my friend. It's a big enough leap for them to vote for someone based on something other than his outward appearance and "image", let alone cast a vote based on a thorough review of a candidates positions.

That's why I hate it when people get up and complain about politicians who only care about special interests. It's because there are no negative consequences for doing so! The only reason that there are bad politicians in office is because the people have allowed them to be there. If voters started holding politicians accountable for things other than sex scandals; if they began taking the responsibility of electing officials seriously and considered all issues important to them; made decisions based on facts and supported by a free and zealous media (not unbiased necessarily, but zealous across the spectrum), I guarantee you that politicians would suddenly find religion, stop paying lip service to one position while acting another way, and begin to make decisions that are actually good for the American people. But as long as image and appearance are the key factors in getting elected (along with incumbents), most will still side the special interests that bankroll their campaigns so they can mold their image and insure re-election.

This is why campaign finance reform will never work. Political money is like water - it will find every crack, crevice and hole and flow freely through it. There is no legal dyke big enough to stem this flood. The only way to get rid of money in politics is to remove its necessity, and that will not happen until the voters stand up and hold elected officials accountable.

Thoughts?

A reason to vote?

2004-07-14T10:59:00.000-04:00

So today I was listening to the radio on my extended drive into work, and I hear the notion that many voting blacks would choose to back George W. Bush simply because he’s a Christian man. What kind of ridiculous notion is this? Firstly, Bush is Methodist while Kerry is Catholic, both branches of Christianity, what is wrong with people that cannot understand this? And furthermore, how is this a real factor on who can run this country and make the decisions that are best for its people? On top of that, just because a person is a certain religious designation does not guarantee that person is honest. People from all religions have lied, stole, cheated, and committed crimes well beyond a simple false truth. Yeah, for many people, it is still a deciding factor on choosing a candidate over the issues that can and most likely will have a direct effect on their daily way of life. Let’s put it this way, the factions of terrorists that according to the media are planning to make an attack against the U.S. soon will not care what religion the President is, much less what religion any potential victims are, and when facing a threat such as that, I want the best person to be my Commander in Chief, to protect the lives of my fellow Americans, and I could careless what building you enter on Saturdays or Sundays.

A thought on blogging

2004-07-07T12:02:00.000-04:00

DCD AEPi: do people really think everyone wants to hear about how drunk they were last weekend?

egb3r: Sadly, yes.

egb3r: I mean, in some part of our subconscious we think that people want to hear our opinions about politics.

DCD AEPi: true, but at least we're saying something...

DCD AEPi: i have viewed a couple of these blogs random and I get nothing out of them

egb3r: Did I ever share with you the little piece I wrote about how I was concerned that I was going to come off as one of these idiot bloggers who believe too much in their own self-importance? Cause they definitely think a lot more highly of themselves than they should.

DCD AEPi: no you did not...

egb3r: Ah...

egb3r: I wrote something about that.

DCD AEPi: well, i think we're both grounded enough where we know we're expressing opinions, not forcing ideas onto people

egb3r: True.

DCD AEPi: having a blog doesn't make you great, posting to a blog certianly doesn't either, but making someone think, whether it's for or counter your position, that's something to be said...

Disclaimer - READ THIS FIRST

2004-07-07T10:54:00.001-04:00

WARNING: This website is not for the faint of heart. The politically correct read on at their peril. We are blunt. We will call stupidity stupid. We will call ignorance ignorant. We will give praise when it is earned and criticism when it is due. But what may be most scary for some is that we will be honest.

For those of you who are curious, or would like to unsuccessfully pigeon-hole and marginalize us by saying our views and values are shaped by some out-of-the-mainstream experience, we represent a wide swath of demographics. We are white and black. We are a Jew and a Catholic. We are from the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic, the son of a lawyer and the son of a cop, a Democrat and a Republican (though we are both democrats and republicans, if you get my meaning). However, we’re both men and we’re both in our twenties, so make of that ammunition what you will.

If this has not scared you off, please read on. All we ask is that you not be afraid to change your mind.

Day One - The Veep-stakes

2004-07-07T10:54:00.000-04:00

egb3r: So please explain this John Edwards thing to me, cause I just don't get it....

egb3r: I can only think of a few reasons why they would pick him, and all of them make no sense to me...

DCD AEPi: you know something, I've been trying to figure it out for the last 24 hours myself..

DCD AEPi: and I don't get it either

egb3r: 1) He preaches the populist rhetoric that Al Gore used (something that worked so well he lost the election)....

DCD AEPi: but won the popular vote

egb3r: 2) They view him as a Bill Clinton type - a charming attorney from the south who could charm the pants off a southern Baptist.....but that only really works when there are not that many substantive issues on the table.

egb3r: 3) Kerry has bought into his self-created myth that he's so strong on the issues all he needs is a good campaigner to put himself over the top

DCD AEPi: that is the only real reason I have found....Clinton is by far the most popular democrat of the last 20 years...if Edwards is the second coming of Slick Willie, which he's not, it would be a tremendous push

egb3r: 4) Kerry, being the finger-in-the-wind politician that he is, went out and found the most popular democrat not named Clinton and put him on the ticket...

egb3r: To quote Tony Kornheiser, that's it. That's the list.

egb3r: And, if that really is the list, everyone of those reasons is badly flawed.

DCD AEPi: See, and that I disagree with because I think Gephardt was more popular..but that is just what I see

egb3r: I think this pick is a giant step back.

egb3r: There is hidden reason number five though....

egb3r: As it stands right now, no matter how great a speaker Edwards is, Dick Cheney is going to rip him a new one when they debate....Cheney has been around Washington forever, he speaks with authority and he has a fact based answer for every question in a tone that leaves no room for debate....

egb3r: When this is going on during the debate, they might be hoping that it looks like Scrooge beating up on Tiny Tim (and a little Haliburton related cajoling may just be enough to make Cheney lose his temper)....

DCD AEPi: very true...I'm not necessarily a Cheney fan, but Edwards can't touch him

egb3r: This whole thing may be a ploy to make Bush keep Cheney on a short leash, which is a big loss for that campaign (highly doubtful, but a nice fringe benefit nevertheless).

DCD AEPi: that just reminded me of the Nixon/Kennedy debates too...

DCD AEPi: Nixon, the cold, staunch, older, looking man versus the youthful, charming, quick witted confident man...Kennedy won a lot of vote just from his physical appearance compared to Nixon...

egb3r: Yeah....I didn't even think of that one. But, as those debates showed, image is everything....and Dick Cheney can at times look like Danny DeVito's stunt double for Batman 2.

DCD AEPi: yes, Cheney's health has been a concern since 2000

DCD AEPi: and as we have discussed on many occasions, appearance can sadly outweigh substance these days...

egb3r: I'm just sitting here shaking my head right now.

DCD AEPi: but...since the voting public typically isn't a young demographic, the contrast could work in favor of bush/Cheney

DCD AEPi: but personally, as a democrat, I don't see what Edwards brings to the table and how he will push kerry over the top..

DCD AEPi: i think it was a poor choice..

DCD AEPi: and after McCain denied Kerry, which was half brilliance and half desparation on the kerry campaign side, I don't think anyone else was a truly valued option

egb3r: Agreed.

DCD AEPi: McCain was one of the few people as a VP nominee that would have me vote for president completely based on his running mate

egb3r: I think the Bush team (and McCain) have put the 2000 animosity behind them, and have offered McCain a serious seat at the table now....hence the new ads featuring McCain.

DCD AEPi: i have yet to see those ads yet...well, McCain is a true man of his party...which I can respect...put the party's agenda in front of your own until the election is over

egb3r: Well, I also think they should have gone after Joe Biden, but you don't want someone on the ticket who is more respected than the the nominee.

DCD AEPi: delaware carries nothing...it's like selecting a running mate from Rhode Island..what's the point...

egb3r: Cheney is from Wyoming....didn't make him any less of a cnadidate.

DCD AEPi: that's a little different though, that mid western appeal stretches a LONG way

egb3r: Biden could probably go toe to toe with Cheney in a debate (silly hair plugs not withstanding), and would have brought a gravitas that Edwards can't even hope to have.

DCD AEPi: well, biden's career in politics obviously gives him a huge edge over edwards...

egb3r: Edwards accentuates domestic policy issues while bringing very little to the table re: foreign policy, which means that Kerry thinks he can handle that part on his own.....

egb3r: Personally, I think that's a mistake given Kerry's erratic voting record.

egb3r: But, at the same time, Biden supported the war and kerry may have been concerned with alienating the anti-war left.

DCD AEPi: and that's going to be kerry's entire campaign, using anti war sentiments to sway the public

egb3r: But that's insane, because all Bush has to do is play up Kerry's erratic (and often contradictory) voting record on foreign policy issues, and he's cooked.

DCD AEPi: but in terms of foreign policy, whether you're for or against the war, i think in the long term, biden's knowledge would have swayed dems and perhaps indies that are on the fence

egb3r: I agree.

egb3r: Hence why I think not picking him is some serious ball dropping by the Kerry camp.

DCD AEPi: i could find reasons to support Gore and Lieberman, i'm already having a lot fo issues with this....

DCD AEPi: oh Green Party...where are you?!?!?

egb3r: HAHAHAHA

egb3r: I was about to fall out of my chair thinking you might vote for Bush, given all the problems I have with him, I didn't think it was possible for you to vote for him.

DCD AEPi: look, i'm from Massachusetts, and Kerry wasn't my choice in the primaries..

DCD AEPi: that should tell you something there

egb3r: True.

DCD AEPi: you know, after 2000, i really thought the country would get excited about this up coming election...

DCD AEPi: but to be honest...i don't think that's going to happen..

DCD AEPi: except for the people that aren't even looking at issues and are just wearing the "Vote, but not for Bush" t-shirts

egb3r: Those people drive me insane!

egb3r: Because, to be honest, I've been a republican ever since I stopped letting MTV tell me what to think, and I was hoping that the Dems would nominate someone who would be better qualified, give me a reason to sit down a really think about who I should vote for....Instead, those people went out and voted on "electability" and gave me the weakest serious candidate in the entire field.

DCD AEPi: agreed, i really like the whole mtv generation's movement to vote, but honestly, people should have a substantive reason to vote....not just because someone else said bush is bad..

DCD AEPi: and I was reading MSNBC today, and the dems have a 49-41 percent lead on the republican ticket...how is this so?!?!

egb3r: Never read polls!

egb3r: Pollsters usually never call after 8 PM....so all they do is get people sitting on the couch at home.

egb3r: When the do call after 8, they get people who are either sitting down to dinner or trying to enjoy their evening and so the answers get skewed.

egb3r: And, people lie to pollsters all the time.

egb3r: Something like 75% of respondants say they voted in the last election, which is insane because I don't think we cracked 50% of eligible voters.

DCD AEPi: trust me, i know how mis informative polls are...i took two classes which were basically all about polling and governmental statistics...

egb3r: Did you take "Public Opinion and Political Behavior"?

DCD AEPi: YES

egb3r: That class opened my eyes like no other.

egb3r: After that class, I don't put any stock in polls whatsoever....

DCD AEPi: that was one of my favorite government classes

egb3r: Sadly, I think the American people do.

DCD AEPi: of course the public does, because it's easy...it information, regardless of how it was taken, that is presented with pretty charts and graphs..

DCD AEPi: and people eat that up..

egb3r: My favorite are these Iraq polls that the news organizations do....

egb3r: They spend six solid months presenting nothing but bad news from the country, forcasting doom and gloom and saying nothing is going right (though a staggering amount was going very well), and then they think it's big news that a majority of Americans now question what is going on there!

egb3r: Of course they question it, because all they have seen is bad news!

egb3r: It drives me insane!

DCD AEPi: that's the liberal media man....

egb3r: I'm not blaming it on a liberal bias, I'm blaming it on the "If it bleeds it leads" culture....bad news sells a lot better than good.

egb3r: (Though I'm sure the liberal bias helps).

DCD AEPi: i agree completely....it's like the success stories of kids in under funded urban schools who are still able to work for what they believe in, and make a name for themselves, if the choice is bewteen running a story on how to better yourself against the student drop out rate, the drop out rate will get the call everytime

egb3r: Yup.