Iranian Protests Continue

Crisis in Iran Sparks Global Guerrilla Cyberwar

"The election crisis in Iran has ignited a full-on guerrilla cyberwar, with Twitterers and techies across the globe pitching in to help protesters in that country access the Internet, and official Iranian government Web sites being knocked offline."

The protests against the s"election" of President Ahmadinejad continue with surprising intensity today. It is difficult to know exactly what is going on as the Iranian government has cracked down on almost all reporting, all video footage, and is trying to restrict all instant messaging, texting, email, phone, and other communication.

Twitter however has seemed to manage to become the medium of choice for Iranians looking to get their message out to the world as the government tries to squelch and censor them.

Although it may be the case that Iran did in fact elect Ahmadinejad, there are reported problems with the % vote for Ahmadinejad due to irregularities in the vote. Some areas are reporting up to 140% of the population voting, others showing clear statistical anomalies, there were some polling stations were shut down before they were intended to, and of course the fact that 3 hrs after the polls closed they had somehow managed to do a manual count of millions of paper ballots.

In the mean time, people world-wide are trying to stand with the Iranian people, looking to assist them getting around the censors with proxy servers, and putting the Iranian government who is brutally trying to stifle dissent on the defensive by taxing their resources through Denial of Service attacks against their websites and servers.

It will be interesting to see what Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei decides to do here. He at first backed Ahmadinejad's election as a divine proclamation, but has seen backpedaled calling for investigation into election fraud. It would be difficult for him to completely backpedal and back Moussavi without undermining his own authority, but the situation may be rising to a head where he needs to throw Ahmadinejad under the bus to preserve any of his own authority at all. Time will tell.

The U.S. and President Obama have taken a cautious approach so as not to add fuel to the fire of the hardline supporters in Iran. While it would be in our best interest to see that the supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi are victorious, it would harm their effort if the U.S. injected itself too heavily into the situation and appeared as meddling. The best that can be hoped for is for them to manage the victory themselves, despite the military and governments objections.

The situation is tense, but it is my fervent hope that the voice of the Iranian people is heard. It may well be that the Iranian people called for the re-election of Ahmadinejad, though I continue to hope not, and if it is their voice needs to be respected as they are a sovereign nation. But if that is not the case, then the widespread election fraud must be fought tooth and nail. The voice of their people deserves to be respected no matter what.

Mountain Dew World of Warcraft Promotion - Please Click My Link!

If you click my link and do the free signup you'll help me get points for possible prizes, thanks!

G20 Protests turn Violent & Destructive

Protests Turn Ugly in London

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Violent actions by ignorant people. Capitalism has been one of the main driving forces for the betterment of humanity since it's inception, and driven industry, innovation, progress, new technology, medical advancements, and just about every modern marvel we have to be thankful for. But apparently some people would like to tear all of that down and go live in a world full of poverty and squalor because they're too lazy to make a better life for themselves in a good and working system.

Google: Cognitive Autoheuristic Distributed-Intelligence Entity

Introducing CADIE!

All your personal World Wide Website belong to CADIE

This is one of the better April Fools jokes I've seen today. Check out CADIEs home page and Gmail Autopilot. RAINBOWS AND PANDAS! Oh god, it's transcended it's makers...

Funny stuff.

Obama lifts ban on Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War
Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics
"President Obama today fulfilled his campaign promise to lift federal-funding restrictions on research involving the destruction of human embryos. He couldn't have done so at a more inappropriate time"

I'm getting a real kick out of all the crying from the radical right over this. The last few weeks I was starting to lose some of my hope for President Obama with all the leftist economic bunk that's been getting approved. But this has given me new hope again. It's refreshing to see a President actually putting Science back to the forefront of the nations consciousness, "restoring scientific integrity to government decision making", rather than an out and out war on science like the last Administration.

NY Post's "Racist" Cartoon

Commentary: NY Post cartoon is racist and careless

"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist," he said, referencing a news release the civil rights activist sent out blasting the paper and demanding an apology.

Delonas, the cartoonist, said to CNN, "It's absolutely friggin ridiculous. Do you really think I'm saying Obama should be shot? I didn't see that in the cartoon. The chimpanzee was a major story in the Post. Every paper in New York, except The New York Times, covered the chimpanzee story. It's just ridiculous. It's about the economic stimulus bill. If you're going to make that about anybody, it would be [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, which it's not."


Post sorry for controversial chimp cartoon
New York Post says the image was exploited by longtime antagonists

After two days of protests, the paper posted an editorial on its Web site Thursday saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, but "to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

The editorial also says some people who have long-standing differences with the paper saw the cartoon "as an opportunity for payback."

The editorial calls them "opportunists" and says: "To them, no apology is due."

If the paper wants to apologize, I have no problems with it - but I'm going to re-state something I wrote to my Facebook page ealier:

I take offense to racism when it's present, it exists, and still does even with the new President breaking a high level racial barrier, and it's real and its ugly when it occurs. I really have no tolerance for any form of ignorant bigotry and hatred.

That said, those making such a huge deal over this being "racist" are really fishing. Obama didn't "write" the Stimulus bill, that was left to Congress (and was unfortunate that it was at that - I'd have rathered had Obama be the driving force behind the language of the bill).

It's hard in fact to see this as anything other than what the Cartoonist described as his motivation - lampooning a current event and the broad array of the halfwit politicians that cobbled together such a pork laden spend-happy sure to cause problems in the future stimulus package around fear as the primary motivator.

Really... to say this was aimed at Obama because he was black takes the context of this cartoon so far away from what is actually depicted it's hard to see those making a big deal out of it as anything other than opportunists. I'm all for combating racism and it's real, very ugly, and harmful effects. But when you stretch reality to this level of ridiculousness, you do nothing but harm your own cause.

Really look at that cartoon. Is there anything there that would suggest to you the artist meant to convey Obama as a monkey? Anything? There's not the slightest hint of Obama-like-ness to that chimp, and cartoon artists are notorious for making clear allusions when mocking someone particular. If the artist was making a subtle reference to Obama as a monkey, don't you think they'd have put some kind of Obama-like reference on the monkey? Some kind of facial features... or hair, or ears... Something? Anything at all?

Obama didn't write the Stimulus bill, and at best its only something he supported. So you probably have a lot of dumb / ignorant (take your pick) people thinking to themselves that Obama actually wrote the bill which makes them think the reference is clearly about him and therefore racist. And if that had been the case, had the artist put Obama-like features on the monkey, I'd agree, it'd be racially insensitive at best, and down-right racist at worst. But he didn't. Anyone trying to claim that's what the artist here intended is just stretching so far it's ridiculous.

MtG Quiz

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

"Buy American" Bad News

'Buy American' Rule in Stimulus Bill Sparks Protest
U.S. businesses and trading partners are up in arms over a provision the House bill that prohibits the purchase of foreign iron and steel for any stimulus-funded infrastructure project.

Yet John Murphy, vice president of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said 50 million Americans whose jobs depend on exports would pay the price.

"If the U.S. raises these barriers to international business, we're likely to see massive retaliation around the world," he said.

Insanity. First off, the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act ia widely acknowledged as one of the major contributing factors to driving the economy into a deep and unresponsive Depression during the Great Depression. Retaliatory tariffs were enacted across the globe and trade was choked off almost entirely adding fuel to the fire. "Protectionism" almost always hurts way more and way more people than it might help in the short run.

House Democrats have passed a version of the Stimulus bill that would inject crazy amounts of cash into the economy, plenty of which is going to be wasted on pet projects and pork instead of narrowly targeting key areas to help bolster production - but wait! Businesses are having trouble dealing with the downturn in the economy, they're losing money, having to lay people off - so what do the Democrats think will work to fix it? Force those businesses to have to buy raw materials at a more expensive price even if they could get it cheaper from foreign suppliers - just to line the pockets of union steel plants,

This is completely outrageous, rather than let the taxpayers keep the money and let them decide what to do with it in the private market (there's not enough tax cuts to provide immediate relif) they are going to force business to adhere to inefficient and horribly unfair government interference.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I can't stand about the Democrats. I'm happy to see social conservative junk getting overturned, but they drive me absolutely nuts when it comes to fiscal suff - it's like they have a bunch of baboons making their economic policy objectives.

'Buy American' Rule in Stimulus Bill Sparks Protest
U.S. businesses and trading partners are up in arms over a provision the House bill that prohibits the purchase of foreign iron and steel for any stimulus-funded infrastructure project.

Red State / Blue State? Country swings *slightly* Indigo

Gallup on Nationwide Partisanship

"... So, what's the upshot of Gallup's findings? Unsurprisingly, they find that the country has moved left. Below is a reproduction of their partisanship results from 2002, 2006, and 2008."

The country clearly took a bit of a left turn this year rallying behind Barack Obama. There were far more "Blue" States this year than happened in 2004, or even in 2000. But did the country really move that far to the left?

Here's a map broken down by County of the 2004 Presidential Election (Republican George W. Bush beat Democrat John Kerry 286 / 252 for a solid Electoral victory) - country looked very "Red" State by State


Here's a map broken down by County of the 2008 Presidential Election (Democrat Barack Obama beat Republican John McCain 365 / 173 for a landslide Electoral victory) - country looked a lot more "Blue", particularly in a cartogram by population.


Now, broken down by County, the country is definitely a wash of purple, with some clumps of Blue, and clumps of Red... but how much has really changed from 2004 to 2008? Sure the Red of the Mid-west is more muted in 2008, and the Blue of the West Coast, North East, and Central North is a bit more prominent - but there's little change from one map to another really... at least by county to county. Cartograms that weighted the size by the population would definitely show more Blue this time around, but the reality is the Popular vote was pretty divided in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and the Electoral maps don't really show that.

Did the country take a sharp left turn then? Clearly the answer is no. We're still basically the same country we were a few years ago, there were just more of us tired of the incompetence of the last administration and not frightened out of our sense of reason by terrorist attacks this time around.

The Democratic Leadership would do well to remember that if they care to hold on to power in 2010. The country wanted competent and workable leadership, not a drunk orgy of spending on pet projects that will have little real and lasting positive impact on the country. Infrastructure spending is good, we probably need that. Spending on extraneous things for the sake of government spending is bad.

As stated in the article above - the demographic change in partisanship swung pretty heavily from Republican to Democrat in just a few years even while the Republicans were thinking they had a good shot at establishing a lasting majority. The country can swing back too if they Democrats really foul things up - something they should try to avoid, or we might be looking at very different election maps in 2010 and 2012.

Barack Obama sworn in a 44th President of the United States of America

Obama's inaugural speech



Full text of the Inaugural Speech quoted for posterity - it really was a fantastic speech:

"My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land -- a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions -- who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment -- a moment that will define a generation -- it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed -- why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

Power-hungry Pelosi

Pelosi Turns Back the Clock on House Reform
Moderate Democrats will be frozen out.

"Every two years the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives introduces a new set of rules to govern the body. Normally, this event passes with barely a yawn from the public. But the changes pushed through on Tuesday by Democrats will have real-world consequences for fiscal conservatives of both parties.

Gone are term limits for committee chairmen, a big comeback for seniority over merit. Cost containment measures on Medicare, one of the fastest growing programs, are simply suspended for this Congress.

Tax increases now will be easier to pass, because opponents will not be allowed to offer a simple motion to strike any increase without making up for the "lost revenue." In addition, tax cuts are made more difficult, because they cannot be offset with spending cuts. The new rules will mean that the only way to push for a tax cut will be to propose a tax increase elsewhere."

I'm really beginning to hate Pelosi more and more. You always hope when a political party takes power, they can exercise some self restraint and not try and dismantle the protections in place to give some check and balance to the political system. 8 years ago when the Republicans took control of the Presidency, House, and Senate, they started talking about getting rid of the Filibuster so they could ram legislation through. The Democrats cried foul about it, and it never went through, but fast forward to today... The Democrats are about to control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in a few days, and they have talked about ending the Filibuster, and started trying to dismantle rules to protect the minority and empower themselves.

The whole thing is interesting and a little bit sickening to watch from the outside.

Neither party has a lock on what's good for this country, so it's a bad idea to let either one of them ram legislation through, and run roughshod over the other. While civil liberties will probably (and I really really hope) enjoy some resurgence from where they've been curtailed during Bush's reign of terror, we're about to enter a whole new era of attacks on personal liberty and freedom. This time, it's going to come from the Left, and it's going to take the form of too much government spending, interference in the free market, over-regulation, and crowding out of private investment. It's going to cause growth of bloated government bureaucracy, and put pressure on the economy to further Inflation.

Actually... keep an eye on that. Inflation. You're going to hear more about it in not too long because all the tampering and "Stimulus" everyone is trying between the Fed and the Government, is going to come back to bite us all in the ass in probably not too long once things have recovered from the current slump.

I still think Obama leans towards fiscal restraint - and his choices in terms of the Cabinet and other positions of authority concerning the economy (with the exception of some of his Labor picks) bear that out - but we'll see.

Anyway, back to Pelosi...

When Obama takes control of the Executive branch, he really needs to exert his power and put a muzzle on her, she's turning into an out of control rabid animal that's going to do the Democrats a lot of harm in a couple years.

Pelosi just seems to be drunk on power and unable to remember what it was like to be in the minority only a few years ago. That's always dangerous, because things never stay the same, politics, much like a lot of other things in life, tends to be cyclical. Power swings between sides, and if one side dismantles too many protections, when the other side gets control, they're that much worse off. I guarantee you now that the Democrats are going to take the Presidency, there are a number of Republicans gnashing their teeth over the fact that Bush expanded the powers of the Office to unprecedented levels in one of the biggest power grabs in government in history. The same will be felt in a couple years when the Republicans re-take control of the House about Pelosi by the Democrats.

She's used to being the voice of the Party over the last few years, far more vocal than Reid. But she's not the top Democrat anymore, so I think, and I hope, that Obama puts her in her place, and forces her to calm the hell down, and exercise restraint. Restraint is good for the long term growth and welfare of the party. Excess, particularly in power in politics, has the almost inevitable movement towards corruption for the party in the position to enjoy it.

Anyway, here's hoping Obama gets Pelosi under control. There's not all that many people in this country as far to the Left fiscally as she is - and if she pushes her harmful ideology the party will be met with backlash in not too long. We saw it in the Republican revolution of 1994, we could see it again in 2010, unless someone puts some checks on her.

Israeli Defense Force, Hamas, and the Palestinian People.

Israel Hits Second U.N. School, Blasts Way Into Southern Gaza

"Israel isn't commenting on Tuesday's airstrikes, but it has accused Hamas of using schools, mosques and residential areas for cover and staging grounds for terrorist attacks.

Earlier Tuesday there was an attack that killed three at a school in the Gaza city itself."

I've been mostly silent on this issue since it's started. I spoke about it with my wife a few times, but I've yet to commit anything to writing... mostly because I've been reading a lot about the issue, and trying to come to grips with the reality of the situation - there is a metric ton of propaganda being spewed from both sides, so it's tough to really know exactly what's going on.

If you listen to the Israeli's and their supporters:

Israel is the victim. Hamas has been bombarding their civilian areas outside of the Gaza area with almost constant rocket fire. The rocket fire is deadly, and has caused a slow but steady stream of destruction, terror, and death which has been largely not reported because no one attack was ever major enough to merit the coverage. Israel has the right to defend itself, it's patience has run out, and therefore it's actions are justified. Israel has been measured and restrained in it's use of force, and only killed Hamas targets. Anyone who disagrees is either stupid, an anti-Semite, or a terrorist themselves.

If you listen to the Palestinians and their supporters:

The Palestinian people are the victims. The Israeli hardliners are heading into a political election season and have been trying to drum up support by agitating a crisis, spreading fear among their own people to justify harsh tactics and responding to it the only way they know how. Caused directly by Israeli occupation and blockades the region has been left politically unstable, with the people having little to no infrastructure, prospects, and hope of a better tomorrow without outside help. The Palestinian people democratically elected Hamas as its leadership and Israeli's have been looking for any excuse to annhilate them because they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. Their history of keeping the Palestinian people in what is essentially an open air prison, at the hands of a tyranical oppressor State (Israel) has lead to the radicalization of certain elements of the Palestinians and lead directly to the response of the people in electing Hamas. Hamas rocket fire has happened but been mostly a nuisance and the Israeli response has been brutal and far beyond degree that has been inflicted upon them. Israel has been careless, caused hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties among them women and children of which they willingly get pictures out to the media, and caused a humanitarian crisis by cutting off food, energy, and medical supplies to the area.

What's the truth?

Hard to say, both sides claim to be the victim, and in some ways, both are. It's pretty clear Israel's hardnose actions and response along with colonialist expansion over the years has caused some of its own problems. It has engendered a lot of hate among it's Arab neighbors for the way its conducted itself. It's treated the Palestinian people pretty terribly throughout the years, while they Palestinian people have been used as a proxy weapon by their Arab neighbors who are quite legitimately anti-Semitic in many cases.

The Palestinian people on the other hand really fouled things up when they democratically elected Hamas to lead them. They put an equally hardline and extremist faction in power, and don't have the power to stop them from agitating for conflict when it's causing a reaction that has lead to the death and suffering of the people it's supposed to lead. Hamas isn't stupid. They know they don't have the power to fight and destroy Israel. The best they can do is to push Israel until it over-reacts (which it has a rich history of doing) and then play to international sympathy at the plight of the Palestnian people which they are using as an unwitting weapon in terms of casualties themselves. Such tactics worked a little while back with Hezbolla & Lebanon, and they appear to be working now.

Israel has been attacking Police Stations (and yes, according to International Law, Police Officers are civilians), Mosques, Schools to get at Hamas. Hamas rocket bombardment is not just a nuisance, it is trying to spread fear, terror, and strife and yes, death - among the Israeli civilians caught in the conflict, and it is lethal and very destructive. While Israel has a right to defend itself certainly, the death toll has rapidly climbed in Gaza, and the suffering of the civilian Palestinian population is being complicated further by the blockade of food, clean water, medical supplies, and energy. Hamas is hiding behind the Palestinian people using them as a human shield, and Israel has seen fit to justify any action they want at all to themselves on the premise of defending themselves, including crushing those people, if it gets the at Hamas.

With every Palestinian death, the population is further terrorized by Israel, and undoubtedly further radicalized in the process - good for Hamas, and good for the Israeli hardliners who are in fact up for a political election cycle. With the staggeringly unequal casualties mounting, International Good-will is beginning to turn against Israel - maybe bad for Israel, they still seem to have the unqualified support of the United States no matter how much civilian death they cause, so maybe not - and good for Hamas, because as we saw with the Hezbollah conflict earlier, International pressure does work.

What is clear is that thinking the broad military action (bombing - discriminant but with unfortunate civilian "collateral damage" *I dislike using the term, civilian death is never a good thing and should not be casually overlooked - and now it appears ground occupation) of Israel has gone to far is not anti-Semitic just because Israel is a Jewish State. Israel does have a right to defend itself. Israel doesn't have the right other than in the "might makes right" sense to proceed into genocidal-like policies (not limited to bombing civilian sites, but also including its insistence on starving the Palestinian people and causing as much human suffering as possible by denying them medical assistance), which I think are quite rightly evaporating its International support. What is also clear is that Israel is not going to get the Palestinian people to blame Hamas for the situation when they are the ones lobbing bombs and cutting off supplies.

Overall the situation is a mess. George Bush has given blind support to Israel as an Ally engendering that same International ill-will towards us while the United Nations, and the Red Cross saying that Israel is causing a Humanitarian crises. Neither of which has a record of being anti-Semitic, so there is a real problem.

The best solution would of course be for both sides to enter another cease-fire agreement. But while that is in the best interest of the civilian population of both Israel and Gaza, it is not in the best interest of the leadership of either State. The leadership in Hamas is extremist. The hardliners in Israel want to get elected. Both of them benefit from continued aggression, destruction, and killing between the two. Palestine will never be able to recover to a politically moderate and stable area until Israel stops destroying everything they have and choking them to death. At this point, that might not even be possible given the tension levels and hatred that has been spawned across both sides.

It's becoming more and more likely in my mind that a two State solution just isn't going to work. A single State solution might not work either, but it could have some benefits, and would at least address some of the problems if the Palestinians could rise to leadership as well. While we try and keep everyone separate, it's just going to allow the problems to go on.

It's a horrible, tragic mess... and I don't know where the answer is.

Happy Holidays to Everyone!

{Happy, Merry} {Winter Solstice, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Yule, Modranct, Dong zhi, Diwali, Eid ul-Adha, Yalda, Matariki, Saturnalia, Festival of the Unconquered Sun, Festivus, Feast of the Winter Veil} to all!

Hope your Holiday Season is blessed with peace, prosperity, and health for you and your family!

Obama picks Rev. Rick Warren for Inaugural Ceremony

Obama's inaugural choice sparks outrage

" Warren, one of the most influential religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as a reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses and the AIDS epidemic.

But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances -- including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party's most liberal wing."

I'm not a huge fan of Rick Warren. Despite his stances on things like global poverty & human rights abuses, I have difficulty getting past his stance on gay marriage. I believe that the gay marriage issue is one of equal protection under the law, and that to deny gay couples the right to marry, is to define them as something other than normal citizens, and that should be Unconsitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I don't see it as a religious issue, because Marriage as defined by the State is an inherently civil matter. No one is asking Churches to open up and recognize gay marriages religiously. Anyway, I think Rick Warren is dead wrong on the issue, and his backing of CA Prop 8 had a very negative consequence, one that still might do a lot of damage to the country in terms of equal rights.

That said... I think he's a brilliant pick for Obama. Obama has proved time and again to be a very shrewd politician. Picking Rick Warren will mollify the Evangelicals on the right somewhat. While this might piss off some of the very liberal and gay rights crowd (and I am among the latter group, as a heterosexual male, I support gay rights), it buys Obama some political capital to play with. It reminds me of a Thomas Jefferson move. Jefferson was one of the founding fathers most directly responsible for moving the early Country towards a strict Separation of Church and State. He was a fierce opponent of the religious interfering with government - and yet - after elected President, he attended Church more and more regularly and very publicly. Why? Because it helped disarm his opponents while he still worked to overturn what they were trying to accomplish. It was an extremely successful strategy that lead to an Era of freedom of and from religion in the U.S. spanning the next few Presidents terms.

I do believe Obama will help move gay rights forward in this country - maybe not to the extent that some people want to see, myself included, but I believe he will help. When he does, and the Evangelicals get up in arms about it, he'll be able to point back at the Inaugural and his selection of Rick Warren and say that he understands them too. It sends a powerful message of governance from the center. It's something Bush promised to do with his "Uniter not a divider" rhetoric, but failed to deliver.

Anyway, I'm not too worried. In terms of gay marriage, the cat is out of the bag. While many States have been enacting bans on gay marriage, others are realizing that it is probably for the better to recognize it. New Jersey sounds like they will be the next to allow it - and while California is still in limbo, it might swing back to the right side of this debate. And eventually there will be enough problems that the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to deal with it - and unless Conservatives really stuff the bench, I would be shocked if they didn't find the issue based on the Equal Protection Clause, and overturn all those Jim-Crow-like bans.

Anyway - I don't think Rick Warren is indicative of Obama not caring about Gay rights. He's not going to push the issue too far and spend too much political capital on it, but I would be extremely surprised if he didn't really support gay marriage rights - despite his campaign rhetoric on supporting Civil Unions but not Gay Marriage.

US Auto Industry 2.0 - "Southern, Non-Union, and Foreign Owned"

Southern Comfort
Less than two decades ago, Detroit's Big Three were the U.S. auto industry. But now there's a second auto industry: one that is nonunion, foreign-owned and Dixie-based. That's why Southern senators worked so hard to block the bailout.

"Time was, the Big Three were the U.S. auto industry. No longer. Over the past two decades, enticed by cheap labor and massive incentives, a second auto industry has emerged: nonunion, Southern-based and foreign-owned. Large plants, with names of Asian and European carmakers emblazoned upon them, now dot the Southern landscape alongside Civil War memorials. By moving aggressively into Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia and Texas, foreign manufacturers—call them the "Little Eight"—have transformed the economic geography of the nation's auto industry and the political debate surrounding its future.

To hear the rhetoric wafting down from Capitol Hill of late, you'd think that Toyota, Hyundai, BMW and the rest are as all-American as Mom and apple pie. And, in many ways, they now are."

Detroit is running a bloated business, it's weighted down by legacy costs from years of mismanagement and union greed. Businesses can't run bloated, not well, and not for long before someone else comes by and puts them out of business.

We're witnessing that happening now - and we're all going to be better off for it in the long run despite some temporary pains while the adjustment takes place. And there will be pain, and there might be some areas that never truly recover. I'm from Pennsylvania down near Philadelphia originally, and I've been throughout a lot of burnt out, run down industrial towns that never recovered from the downturn in the industry they've supported. Between some of the old US Steel Industry, and Coal Mining towns that are still fairly economically depressed, it causes problems. Detroit and some of the surrounding areas that support the Auto-Industry that's tied to the Big 3 might be in for that if GM, Chrysler, and Ford can't get their house in order. And that's bad, and it's terrible for the people that live there, and it's a shame, and I don't wish that on anyone, but sometimes that's just how things happen.

The northern manufacturing States like Michigan & Ohio have generated disincentives for new industry to locate there with anti-business laws that heavily favor Unions. The Southern Right to Work States on the other hand have encouraged new business there, by setting up business friendly laws that keep the Unions from wielding too much power. They don't prohibit Unions from existing, or from organizing labor - but what they do via "Right to Work" laws, is prohibit Unions from forcing all workers to have to join the Union and pay Union dues. This means means the Unions hold considerably less power in those States because they can't manipulate the situation to make it so they are the only game in town - and if they aren't the only game in town, their bargaining power is greatly reduced.

It's important to take a look at the pros and cons of Unions to understand what's going on. So far, most of my rhetoric here on the site has been pro-business and anti-Union, I make no secret of my thoughts on the situation. But here's why I got there...

In a free market system, the sum of market demand and sum of market supply cross at a point that is an efficient transfer of goods and services between those who are willing and able to purchase and those who are willing and able to supply. The greatest amount of social good comes from this efficient market equilibrium. Social good is measured by the sum of both consumer and producer surplus - effectively the difference between what a person pays or sells at and what they would have been willing to pay or sell at. Market equilibrium maximizes this surplus for both consumer and producer (though to be clear, depending on the demand and supply curves, those amount will differ), and thus maximizes social good.

Any laws or manipulation of the situation to force it out of equilibrium results in a less efficient transfer of goods and services, where some surplus changes hands (sometimes from consumer to producer or vice versa, sometimes from either one of them to the government), but in all cases some of it just gets lost - this is called dead weight loss. This dead weight loss is what is referred to when you hear the proclamation that say something like Taxes don't just redistribute pieces of the economic pie, it actually makes the whole pie smaller. Anyway, the end result is that social good is not maximized and therefore we can make the definitive positive statement that anything that distorts the market from equilibrium causes social harm.

This isn't to say something like taxes aren't necessary. There are plenty of things that a free market will never supply because there is no market force to supply it. Anything that isn't both Rivalrous and Excludable in nature will never be supplied by a market. Public goods like National Defense, or common goods like clean air, won't ever be provided by a private industry - and so there is a place for government to provide to regulate to make sure these needs are in place - and a huge part of financing public sector goods is through taxes. But you need to get into normative economics in order explain why that is necessary because you have to get into making a judgement call between what is better - no taxes & no national defense or taxes and national defense - you probably have an opinion, but it is still just that. Anyway, without going too far off track, lets get back to the Unions.

Unions exist for one reason. To drive the price of labor (otherwise known as the wage) above the market equilibrium. Now, Unions might have started off as a means of protecting workers against harsh and exploitative robber barons of business - but the fact is these days, we have laws protecting people. OSHA has safety standard laws for example which protect workers from unsafe working conditions. So the fact is that the government already provides for the vast amount of reason Unions once had to exist.

This leaves them with only one purpose, to drive up the amount of wage their workers can get - and we're talking about overall compensation, not just the actual wage rate, benefits are an important consideration of overall compensation. An important distinction here is that this manipulation of the market away from the equilibrium harms overall social good. The workers (suppliers of labor in the labor market) may get more producer surplus, but consumer surplus (through the employing business, and passed on to higher product prices for actual end consumers) goes down, and importantly some of that surplus is just flat out lost. Now, you can make an argument that people need a "living wage" and that they should be able to afford to make enough money to live on what they make so long as they don't live outside their means - but there we are getting back into "normative" economics if you try to argue that is "fair". The only measure by which we can say a wage is "fair" in the positive sense is that the wage is the market equilibrium wage. Unions by way of laws built to allow them to do so, monopolize labor and drive the price of labor away from the equilibrium, and harm the employers of such labor.

This is why I describe the Unions as greedy. There is a famous saying in economics "there is no such thing as a free lunch". It's meant to convey the idea that everything has a cost, even if it's hidden from you. Unions may get higher wages for their workers, but that comes at the expense of harm to their employers and consumers of their products.

This is why pro-Union is anti-business and ultimately anti-consumer.

You need to deal with the realities facing the market. If your labor costs are higher than your competitors, they have an advantage against you. They can lower prices and still maintain profitability, while you will run into the margin of non-profitability much sooner. Businesses will likely fail if they are not seeking their profit maximizing scenario - over a long enough time, that is gauranteed if they fail to change to a profit maximizing operation. Union wage hikes cause a business to not be able to profit maximize at the market equilibrium. Some of that can be absorbed, particularly if your product (labor in this case) isn't easily transferable. Trade Unions can work in Construction, because generally those Unions either supply most of, or hardly any at all of, the labor in a given area. You can't have a carpenter in Miami build a building in Philadelphia, while still in Miami. So the operation costs with Trade Unions for construction end up falling to a new equilibrium for the given area (assuming laws in favor of Union power in that area), and the cost is passed along to the consumer, but the Union can successfully exist.

Compare that to the Union for the Auto Industry. Cars, unlike buildings, can be built anywhere and shipped to anywhere as a final product. So if the labor costs are less expensive in the South, then Northern Union labor is replaceable. Now, this might not be the case in the short run... in the short run, you need factories to put things together, and there is already a fair amount of factory infrastructure in say some place like Detroit, that would need to be replaced in the South. And if the costs of replacing that exceed the savings of cheaper labor, then it's not worth it.

But in the long run, most things are open to change that would otherwise not be in the short run. And looking at the Auto-Industry, we're looking at the end phase of the Long Run right now. Foreign competitors have actually built factories in the South - with important upgrades in the production system where modularity allows different makes of vehicle to come off the same assembly line - unlike in Detroit where a single factory is hard wired to make one and only one type of vehicle. This is part of the reason the Foreign makers are doing better than Detroit, they were more easily able to adapt to changing market demand. Workers in the South are producing cars consumers want at cheaper labor costs, at a price consumers are willing to pay because the savings in labor costs can be passed on to the consumer to entice them to buy. Cars being built in Detroit are less responsive to consumer demand, have a reputation (deserved or not) for being lesser quality, and are more expensive due to so much legacy cost associated with the UAW.

What we are essentially witnessing is a repeat of the U.S. Steel Industry collapse. At least, we are watching a collapse of Unionized labor for such, the same way Unionized Steel collapsed back in the 1970s. When the Unions demand too much, over time those costs add up, and eventually it gets to a point the business can't bear it and continue. We must remember, cars really can be built and shipped anywhere, making the labor replaceable in the long run if one area ends up being too expensive.

With all that considered - extending bailout money to the U.S. Big 3 while the UAW refuses to bring its labor costs in line with the competition is propping up a failing business model that will ultimately crumble. Banks don't usually (ignoring the housing bubble fiasco of recent fame) make loans to people they think can't pay them back. Investors don't usually put money into things they think won't bring them a return. Likewise, the Government should not be pumping money into someplace that is likely to lose it with no real chance of return. They shouldn't be doing it particularly when it will directly harm their competition - particularly Foreign owned U.S. competition, employing U.S. citizens, using U.S. made parts, and selling to U.S. consumers.

If the government gets involved in this, we'll get right back to our dead weight loss scenario as they push the system way out of equilibrium. Don't be surprised if a lot of that lost weight is your hard earned cash, paid in taxes, that quickly spirals down the Big 3's toilet of a business model.

UAW points gun at head and screams, "GIVE ME MONEY OR I'LL SHOOT!"

Views on auto aid fall on North-South divide
Tennessee's nonunion workers bristle at bailout talk for Detroit's Big Three

Nissan is a Japanese automaker, but the Altimas, Maximas and Pathfinders that roll out of the factory are built by locals who are "Americans too," they like to point out. And just like the other automakers, Nissan is inflicting some of the economic pain on its employees, cutting shifts and pay.

...

"Over here, we're taking days off without pay to keep the company going, but the unions for the Big Three aren't willing to do that," said Kathy Ward, 54, who has worked 27 years at the sprawling plant here. This year her pay has been cut $5,000 because of days off. "Everyone has to give a little in times like these."

It's kind of like the UAW is holding a loaded gun to it's head screaming "GIVE ME MONEY OR I'LL SHOOT!"

I say... let them do it.

UAW shoots self in foot - Auto Bailout Successfully Blocked in Senate

Rescue Bid for Detroit Collapses in Senate

"Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, complained that Republicans had attempted to turn the wage issue into a political matter about organized labor, instead of making it an "an economic issue." With the economy in recession, he suggested it wouldn't be fair to force auto workers to accept wage cuts in 2009."

Dodd has beeen a leading force behind this push for the Auto-bailout. But I have to wonder what his level of understanding of the real issues at stake here are. The opposition to the auto-bailout without significant concessions from the UAW was absolutely an economic decision.

You can't just wave a magic wand and have the companies suddenly be profitable. Over the last few years, Honda & Toyota's sales were similar in volume and size to GMs... and yet GM lost money while Honda and Toyota made money. The biggest difference? GM was forced into untenable labor contracts by the UAW to have to pay out unreasonable benefits and thus the cost of their labor was way higher. Meanwhile the Foreign companies producing here in the US managed non-union workers and did fine, because they were paying a competitive wage.

The costs of labor are sinking Detroit. Cuts to the cost of labor can't wait until 2011. They need to happen now or a short time from now in 2009, or these companies will go under. That's just the reality. Even if we threw billions at their ultimately unsuccessful business model, we'd only end up losing it while they squander it on paying wages that are simply too high to sustain.

The Republicans were right on this. The UAW needed to make significant concessions, and they needed to make them now. They refused, and thus the talks fell apart. I just can't understand how the Auto-union could make this decision though. They're being stubborn, and instead of walking away with some losses, they're set up now to lose everything. If GM & Chrysler go into Chapter 11 protection - which is how this should have been taking place from the start - the Bankruptcy Judge can get the companies out from under the boot of Organized Labor. If that happens, the UAW is done for.

There is no "good" solution to this. There is only the "least bad" solution to this. For the UAW, the least bad solution would have been to make the concessions and keep their people in work - working for less - but hey, you want a job in a faltering economy, sometimes you need to accept pay cuts. The UAW's stubborn refusal might be a bluff hoping for a stronger Democratic Congress coming in next year to support their nonsense, but I think it's a gamble that's going to cost them the game - permanently.

Honestly, I think that's a good thing. Things are falling into place to bust the Union and break its stranglehold on the Detroit Auto-industry. The weaker the Union - and maybe if we get lucky it'll just break apart and die for good - the better for the country & economy.

Fiscal Responsibility needs to make a comeback

We Need a Bailout Exit Strategy
Let's not forget that free markets made America strong.

"Focusing on exit strategies now is of vital importance to ensure that we do not stumble along a dangerous path of confusion that may end in far greater financial exposure for the American people, and a far worse situation for America's taxpayers and investors. If we answer the tough questions now, and make sturdy plans for the future, we can position our mortgage market, our financial services industry, and the broader economy for renewed growth and prosperity."

This is not the end for free market capitalism, and not the end of enterprise and competition. This is another downturn in a business cycle that is just about always cyclical.

Without mincing words... we've been spoiled the last 15 years.

We've been spared some of the worst of that in the most recent two decades, but we only need look to the past to know we do in fact have a future.

Eventually things will turn around. Eventually the housing market will bottom out and people will begin to buy again when the prices are too good to pass up. Eventually business will start to invest again when the oppotunities are too good to pass up - the insufficient demand will give way, and the economy will flourish, and we will climb out of the rut we're in.

We're not there yet. And it's times like these that challenge us to stick to our economic principles.

Free Enterprise has been the driving force behind our high quality of life, backed by a lawful system that protects property rights. Without either one, we would have been mired in the mess that consumed many of our worldly neighbors. Without a government that protects property rights, free enterprise can not work. If you can not guarantee you can enjoy the fruits of your labor, what incentive do you have to work? We saw the failure of Russian ventures into capitalism precisely because the lacked adequate government control to ensure property rights. In the ensuing chaos, business was run by corrupt crime lords that screwed everyone around them... free enterprise never had a chance. But with the backbone of property right protections, Free Enterprise does wonders. Centrally planned countries tried their best to steer their countries to economic prosperity but try as they might, without adequate market forces guiding business - the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith - economies crumble, and the end result is widespread poverty.

We must not blind ourselves to the lessons of the past century. If we do, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes made by arrogant men and women who thought they knew how to handle other peoples business better than the people who actually knew the business.

Free Markets under assault by Central Planning

The Return of the Old Left
By Robert Tracinski

"Industrial policy" was always just an evasive euphemism used to describe the latest variation on the old theory of central planning. But central planning and nationalization of industries was a dead end when the old Soviet Russians tried it--and it is still a dead end now that Russia is trying it again.

The 20th century experimented with every possible variant of socialism. We had democratic socialism in Western Europe, totalitarian socialism in Eastern Europe, and fascist socialism in South America. We had atheistic socialism and we had "liberation theology." We had the "scientific socialism" of the Soviet central planners and the chaotic jungle socialism of the Khmer Rouge, who executed anyone with an education. We had "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and socialism with African characteristics and socialism with Hindu characteristics.

We tried it all, and every time it led to poverty and oppression.

Those results have been proven with scientific thoroughness. There is no excuse for trying it all again"

This guy is right on the money, we've seen the inevitable end of centralized planning in multiple variations for the last century and then some... it always fails the people it purports to help. It is precisely our move away from such misguided and shortsighted tactics that has made our economy resilient - even in the face of the current contraction.

If we can muddle through these difficult times without selling out our free market system to the far left, the business cycle will turn around, and we will be better off for it. This is why Detroit needs to bail themselves out through Chapt 11 restructuring, rather than be bailed out by big government interference.

Auto-Bailout... "Subsidizing Failure"

Auto bailout vote near in House
$14 billion stopgap rescue plan wins agreement between White House and Democrats. But Republican opposition in Senate could foil bill.

"The House was poised to approve a stopgap $14 billion bailout to U.S. automakers Wednesday evening, but Republican opposition cast doubts about its chances for passage in the Senate later this week."

GOP Senators Jeopardize Auto Rescue Bill
Democratic lawmakers and the White House strike a deal on an emergency $14 billion loan program for the auto industry, but Senate Republicans are not happy with the plan.

"People realize that this bill is an incredibly weak bill, (and) is the product of an administration that wants to kick the can down the road and let somebody else deal with it," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. "I think it has minimal -- very little support in our caucus."

Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, said the legislation unveiled Wednesday "asks taxpayers to further subsidize a business model that is failing to meet the needs of American workers and consumers."

Wow... it's not often my politics align with Southern Republicans.

But this whole thing is shaping up to be like some nightmare out of Atlas Shrugged. "Car Czar"? Propping up corrupt and blood sucking system of forced Unionism?

Is this really a road we want to head down as a country that prides itself on Economic liberty and the American work ethic? We should not be subsidizing the failure of this business model. Unions that force through untenable contracts that leech so much from their employing companies should be left to die.

The best thing that could happen for the future of these car companies is not to hand them billions in government funds and get them used to getting bailed out for failure, the best thing to happen would be them filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and getting the ability to shed the weight and excess baggage that the UAW has burdened them with.

This whole move to bail these companies out is a mistake. Just look at the ridiculous demands that the Democrats in Congress are trying to tie them up with: "Only buy American parts, we don't want the money going to foreign countries" Ok... but American parts are already more expensive, and these companies are struggling to CUT costs so they can ultimately turn a profit and survive. "You have to make greener cars" Ok, but demand isn't really there for them yet, and it's going to be more expensive to produce them and they will lose a lot of money in the short run trying to do so... again at a time when they need to cut costs and economize in the short run just to make it to the long run.

So this whole move by the Congress isn't in the best interests of the car companies. It's not in the best interest of the workers who look to them to provide employment - people are going to get laid off regardless of whether we give them money or not.

The whole mess is just about one thing. Giving money to the Unions to prop up their failure.

This is a bad deal all around, and the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for this nonsense. The country will not fail if these car companies do - we're in a recession sure - business cycles happen - but we are not teetering on the brink of the next Great Depression if they fail like some of these chicken littles at the Automakers are trying to scare people into thinking. The car companies themselves may not even fail if we let them shed the baggage of the Unions under Chapter 11. The country would only be strengthened by letting the UAW be broken and move us towards more economic freedom from forced unionism.

It's sickening really to think these idiots are toying with the welfare of the country by selling out our free enterprise system to crony socialism.

So I now place my hopes on the tenacity of the Republican opposition in the Senate (and few fiscal conservative Democrats that have broken with the Party) to stop this madness.

Arrogant + Stupid + Corrupt == Fail

Commentary: What was Blagojevich thinking?

"In the great annals of "What Was He Thinking?" (political edition), the case of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich sets a new standard -- for its breathtaking stupidity, venality and illegality."

I'm not sure what else to say here... breathtaking stupidity, arrogance, and corruption. How the hell did this dumbass motherfucker think he'd be able to get away with this? Seriously, he KNEW the Feds were already watching him - he KNEW. He taunted them to listen to his telephone conversations if they thought he was doing anything illegal when pressed about corruption investigations, when he went to support that worker takeover of a manufacturing plant that made news last week. He went and had telephone conversations about taking personal gain in exchange for the Senate seat anyway.

They should throw this guy away for a long time.

KY Homeland Security Mangles Church/State Separation

Ky. atheists want God out of homeland security
State law requires office to acknowledge divine help in anti-terror efforts

"Of particular concern is a 2006 clause requiring the Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque that says the safety and security of the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God" and to stress that fact through training and educational materials.

The plaque, posted at the Kentucky Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort, includes the Bible verse: "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

"It is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I've ever seen," said Edwin F. Kagin, national legal director of Parsippany, New Jersey-based American Atheists Inc. The group claims the law violates both the state and U.S. constitutions."

This is actually one of the worst violations of the principled Separation of Church and State I can remember seeing. There isn't even any wiggle room here like the High Court found with those 10 Commandment displays at the southern Court houses, it is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.

Hopefully this runs its course through the legal system and gets fixed.

GOP's Chambliss Wins in GA

GOP's Chambliss wins Ga. Senate runoff
Democrats' hopes for Senate filibuster-proof supermajority dashed

I'm not a big fan of Chambliss. His voting record is ok in some areas, and absolutely horrible in others. But I am glad to see that the Democrats did not pick up a filibuster-proof majority. With all the talks of Auto Company bailouts, and some leading Democrats in very clear support of them, it's good to know that there will be some check and balance left in the system.

Checks and balances are a good thing and healthy for even the party in power. We've seen a large Democratic congress get corrupt before, and they had to be ousted by the Republicans in the mid-90s. We've seen the corruption of the Republican party over the last 8 years while Congress & Bush rubberstamped each others proposals and where that lead. I'm still uncomfortable with how far to the Democrats the Congress has gone, but I still have faith (and it's being backed up by Obama cabinet picks) that our new President will govern from the center.

Automaker Execs think $1/year Salary Enough?

Big Three want more money in bailout
The price tag of a loan to the Detroit automakers could top $34B: GM is asking for up to $18B, Ford wants $9B and Chrysler, $7B.

"The plans included salary cuts for top executives, the sale of corporate jets by General Motors and Ford and the possible elimination of two GM brands - Pontiac and Saturn. But the Big Three are also now asking the government for as much as $34 billion instead of the $25 billion they originally wanted."

Ridiculous, these failures want us to give them even more money than they originally asked for an think offering to take a $1 a year salary and selling their corporate jets is enough to show good faith? Forget that.

And here's Pelosi:
"Bankruptcy is not an option. Everyone is disadvantaged by bankruptcy. It takes too long. What takes a year we can do in a few weeks. ... I don't think anyone wants to see bankruptcy,"

Economic idiot or blind idealogue?

While I don't *want* to see these companies go down to bankruptcy, I would have much preferred them to run themselves well enough to weather the storm of the economic downturn, I would prefer to see them go into bankruptcy and have to reorganize than to see them be bailed out by the government to reward their poor business practices. I'd rather see the entire domestic car manufacturing industry collapse than have the government prop them up. Bankruptcy is absolutely an option, and not only is it an option, it's the best option for these companies to go through.

Why? Because the frenetic race for profit and darwinian struggle for a companies survival is what gets us to the high quality of life we are able to enjoy. Companies must have to try and run themselves well without thinking they will get or getting government support if they screw up (assuming they are a business in the private sector - some things like National Defense obviously won't be able to be provided in the private sector) because it's that struggle to innovate and profit and survive that drives our capitalist economy forward. We've seen how much failure comes from a centrally planned and propped up and supported industry works in the total lack of progress communist countries have or had managed over the last century, and the absolutely awful state of quality of life their people suffered under such draconian measures. That is not a road we should be looking to tread down. The Free Market works, and sometimes that means letting companies, or whole industries go under when they fail to remain competitive.

But Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is the natural occurrence in business when a company is struggling to stay solvent. And if they can't, I don't care how big they are, or how many people might be negatively impacted, we shouldn't be propping up a failed business. Chapter 11 is a last chance, a lifeline thrown to a company going under to let them get their house in order to try and stay afloat. And it's far more lenient than even a lot of very left leaning European countries afford failing businesses. But it must remain up to that company to try and pull themselves out, get rid of the dead weight that's dragging them down, and ultimately survive.

We shouldn't be spending a single dime of bailout money on these inadequate, decaying, wrecks of botched business.

Ex-Fed Chairman Volcker to head Obama Econ Advice Team

Obama: 'Help is on the way' for economy
President-elect names Volcker to head economic advisers team

"Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, 81, will head the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, while the board's top staff official will be Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist."

Oh, this is good to hear. Volcker is a solid choice to head this committee. He made some hard choices back in the early 80s, which put the country through some short term turmoil, but his policies(continued by Ex-Fed Chairman Greenspan) bought us years of restrained inflation that only helped the Economy grow... something that's been troubling in terms of what the current Fed Chairman Bernanke has been doing.

Then we have a Chicago School of Economics economist as the top staff official, which can only be a good thing. Goolsbee has a reputation as being a Centrist, and is well qualified for the position.

Picks like these are reassuring that I was correct in thinking that an Obama Administration will probably govern from the Center and not fall too far to the Left when making Fiscal decisions. That is very reassuring with the large landslide over seats the Democrats took over in congress this political season. Just hearing about the fact they're trying to get an Auto Bailout moving has been making me nervous about the direction they'd take the country in the next few years, but if Obama shows the same restraint in governing as he's showing making his Economic Advisers picks, then I think we may be in for some actual good to be done.

Democrats try to play Auto Industry as Innocent

Automakers ready more detailed loan request
Lawmakers have said they must address new models, executive pay

From Pelosi & Reid:
“In return for their additional burden, taxpayers also deserve to see top automobile executives making significant sacrifices and major changes to their way of doing business,”

“The image that they project is very important. It’s important that they show at every level they understand how serious this is and that they’re willing to make sacrifices as well,” Debbie Stabenow D-Mich said.

Automakers need to “rhetorically indicate the willingness to take whatever additional steps are necessary to protect their companies,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. “These are good people who are running these companies. They have a sense of fiduciary duty.

“Everything was in place, everything was on track, everything was looking very promising,” Bragman said, “and then, through no fault of their own, quite frankly, the economy went south and nobody bought anything.”

This is getting ridiculous. This isn't about image. This isn't about "rhetorical" commitments to do better. Good people or not, everything was not fine with the "Big 3" (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) and then through outside circumstances and no fault of their own they get screwed... Wishful thinking in the extreme, but No... I don't think so.

These companies have resisted changing the way they operate for years to make themselves more efficient and global competitors. They were big enough they could, they rested on their laurels from years past and let the passage of time catch up to them. They allowed themselves to be strangled by bad contracts with the United Auto Workers union, and now they're paying the price - and it's a price we should let them pay.

It's always a poor idea when the government gets into the business of bailing out individual companies. It's not good for the markets. It wasn't a great thing that the government bailed out the banks earlier this year, though it may have been necessary. You just don't want the government getting involved in the life or death of individual companies, it sends mixed messages to the markets which results in confusion and uncertainty.

Companies only deserve to survive if they can be profitable. In order to do that they have to have their house in order, create something of value that people want to buy, and run efficiently. If they can't do that, then their failure is no one's fault but their own. It's up to a company to run efficiently enough in good times that they can weather the storm during economic downturns - the business cycle is just that, cyclical. One thing you can be sure of is if things are down, they'll get better, if they're good, they'll get worse again. So you need to plan for that, and plan to be able to go through an economic contraction. The "Big 3" Auto makers didn't do that. They negotiated contracts with the UAW that were untenable through bad times. And the greedy Union keeps shouting "NO GIVEBACKS!" while the companies that pay their workers livelihoods go under.

Well, that's a lesson they should learn the hard way. Taxpayer money shouldn't be going to this, we'd just be throwing good money after bad, and getting nothing in return.

Let's look at some of the things that have gone on... clearly it's not that people don't want cars anymore. Demand for automobiles of varying types is still high. People need to get places, and despite higher gas prices earlier this year, they still prefer getting their in their private vehicles to using public transportation. In fact we know it's not just the industry itself collapsing, because the Foreign Auto companies that work here in the U.S. are prospering, even during this economic contraction. Consumer Reports ranked the top 10 cars produced all to be Japanese made cars. While the American car companies focused on gas guzzling SUVs, they failed to develop fuel efficient cars like many of the foreign car companies did, and when gas prices spiked, sales fell (and they have no one but themselves to blame for being insufficiently diversified). In fact, over the last 15 years, while the "Big 3" have lost more than 83,000 jobs in the Michigan area, the Auto Industry itself has CREATED over 91,000 American jobs mostly by Asian companies employing in the South - mostly because a lot of those Southern States are Right to Work states, where Unions don't have as much pull.

Which brings us to the biggest problem - the United Auto Workers Union.

The UAW is like a pair of concrete shoes on these companies while they try and swim in the global market, dragging them down, and ultimately going to drag them under where they can't survive. The "Big 3" have been paying wages close to $10-$20 an HOUR more than their foreign competitors, because the UAW has forced through non-competitive contracts that are choking them to death. In some cases there were reports of the "Big 3" paying Union members, almost 12,000 in total, their full salary and benefits for doing crossword puzzles and sitting in front of a T.V., while their foreign counterparts actually had their labor, you know, making cars. On top of it, the companies are forced to provide Health Care benefits to these Union members, and pay out large pensions to retirees. Estimates are about an extra $1,500 per "Big 3" car tacked on to the price just to be able to pay out these pensions, putting them at a competitive disadvantage to the foreign manufacturers right off the bat.

Let's look at some startling numbers:

"GM’s projected average labour costs for 2008: $69 per hour

Toyota’s projected average labour costs for 2008: $48 per hour

Toyota’s labour cost advantage: 43.8%

Average hours of labour needed to produce a Toyota automobile in 2007: 30

Average hours needed to produce a Chrysler automobile: 30

Estimated pre-tax, per-automobile profit earned by Toyota: $922

Estimated profit earned by Chrysler: -$412

Average rating, out of 100, Consumer Reports awards the Chrysler, GM and Ford products manufactured: 58

Average rating for the Toyota and Honda products manufactured: 77

What's this showing you? I know what I see. Toyota's labor (here in the U.S., these are U.S. jobs, U.S. workers, just being provided by a foreign company), able to produce at the same efficient level of production for less, and not only that, but produce higher rated vehicles. Is it any wonder why the "Big 3" have been having problems? These are systemic problems inherent in the way they are set up to do business. This isn't a "oh woe is me I'm suffering through no fault of my own." type of situation. They set themselves up poorly and allowed themselves to be choked by the UAW, and now they're suffering the consequences.

Meanwhile in Right to Work States that have successfully broken the bully power of these Unions, the Auto Industry is flourishing (Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas).

Right to Work States:


So I think the message is clear. Let these Auto companies go into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. This is a natural part of the business process. Companies that fail need to reorganize to be competitive, or they should not continue. We aren't and should not be responsible for propping up failing companies, no matter how much nostalgia they bring, or how many workers they employ. And that's what Chapter 11 is, a chance to reorganize, and set up a better business model. It's not Chapter 7, where the company just goes under and gets liquidated. This would be a chance for the "Big 3" to get significant concessions from the UAW to enable them to be able to operate in a competitive global environment. The Union might be crying that it's already given concessions, by lowering the pay of new employees, but their old employees are still getting paid at the same rates as before, and nothing has been sacrificed on their part in terms of unreasonable benefits and pensions.

Best case scenario, we let these companies fail and get forced into reorganization, and the power of the Union gets shattered and broken. Perhaps we end up seeing more Right to Work States, as they flip into the column of economic freedom. Employees should be free to join Unions, or refrain from joining Unions, without getting forced into paying Union dues as a condition of employment. Maybe we keep something like the ridiculous "Card Check" scam of a bill from passing congress in an overwhelmingly Democratic congress, and keep millions of workers from being forced into Union labor contracts that don't wish to join. As I said, that's the best case scenario.

Worst cast scenario, these companies go under, and thousands of people lose their jobs in the short term. They get forced to retrain themselves for a bit while they collect unemployment, and find new work, and companies like the foreign car competitors swoop in to pick up the lost market share and supply the nation with the cars we want for reasonable prices, and create new jobs for those out of work.

We're pretty much watching a rehashed U.S. Steel Industry collapse from back in the late 1960's & 1970's. In the Steel Industry the Unions forced their companies to overpay, the industry got choked by this unfair non-competitive wage they had to pay, and then they couldn't keep up with foreign competitors that outproduced them, and did so for less, while the little steel work that was left moved to non-union shops. It's really too bad the U.S. Automakers couldn't learn from history, and have set themselves up to repeat it, but that was their own responsibility to navigate, and their own responsibility to accept the consequences of...

And the taxpayers of this nation should not be giving them anything to bailout these poor business decisions.

This is Sin against the Lord! Ex 20:3

Preacher Defends Obama Sign



Check out the level of crazy on this Kansas Preacher...

CA Court will hear Prop 8 Appeal

Court will hear appeal of same-sex marriage measure

"The court said arguments in the case could be heard as early as March.

In its May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court's eyes.

The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

Stripping people of rights should never be open to a simple majority by ballot initiative, plain and simple. There is a reason it takes a supermajority to amend most State and Federal Constitutions when it comes to fundamental rights - to keep the stupid stuff from happening and to make sure there is enough rational opposition to keep a tyrannical simple majority from taking away fundamental rights from a minority group. We as a people have defined our Constitution in such as way as to be a list of negative mandates on what the Government can not do to us. One thing that should never be able to be done is to take away people's rights.

And Gays & Lesbians have a fundamental right to be given Equal Protection under the law, as mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Federal U.S. Constitution.

Just say no to the Auto bailout...

Bipartisan group agrees to revive auto bailout
Compromise to speed emergency loans to Big Three Detroit carmakers

"Republicans and Democrats plan to present the proposal at a mid-afternoon news conference Thursday. But it was whether the compromise plan could draw enough support to get through a reluctant Senate."

Hopefully this does not pass.

Listen to this Harvard Economic professor:



These companies if they are not competitive and not going to survive do not warrant money being flushed down the toilet on them. They've got horrible deals worked out with the UAW in terms of Union wages, and those need to be restructured. The Unions have driven these companies into the ground. If these companies need to go into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, then so be it. But we shouldn't be encouraging them for making bad business decisions by supporting these companies and throwing good money away just to keep the goons of organized labor in power.

Alaska's Republican Ted Stevens Loses

Alaska Sen. Stevens Loses Re-election Bid to Democratic Challenger
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich had an insurmountable lead over Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens with only about 2,500 overseas ballots left to be counted

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a Washington political power and Alaska icon who couldn't survive a conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats closer to a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority."

It really surprises me that the election was even this close. Alaskan's must have a large percentage of the population that really dislikes Democrats to have nearly re-elected a convicted felon.

Bailout Money, the Auto Industry, and the UAW

Top GOP senators oppose automaker bailout
Refusal to back ‘dinosaur’ industry puts passage of proposal in doubt

“Companies fail everyday and others take their place. I think this is a road we should not go down,” said Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. “They’re not building the right products,” he said. “They’ve got good workers but I don’t believe they’ve got good management. They don’t innovate. They’re a dinosaur in a sense.”

Now that the era of Bush incompetency is coming to a close, I wonder if I will find myself agreeing with the Republican party more?

The bailout of the Banks was an unfortunate, bu necessary expenditure. Our entire financial system depends on liquid credit being available, and when credit markets are seized up, and banks aren't lending because of an excess of irrational fear in the market, then it makes the situation worse. And bad banking practices shouldn't be encouraged, by giving out bailout incentives to those that mismanage their money and business... but sometimes it's necessary to keep a bank afloat in order to keep its lenders from being dragged under by the banks failure.

The Auto Industry is an entirely different matter. The Industy in America has been plagued by incompetent management, and held hostage by the greed of the United Auto Workers union (granted by the complicit endorsement by the goverment, but still). It's a failing system that's just barely kept itself alive against foreign imports because it's failed to stay competitive. Is it the fault of the better, more competitve imports that the American system has set itself up to fail? No. Should it be the job of the U.S. taxpayer to bail out a horribly mismanaged private business? No. Doing so would be throwing good money after bad, giving incentive to the businesses to continue with poor practice, and ultimately throwing the money away.

The Auto industry here in America could benefit by throwing off the shackles of the Union deathgrip, and by producing a better product and managing their affairs better. But if they can't do that themselves at least on the better product and management end (I think it'd be nice to see more Right to Work laws across more states to help bust the monopoly power of the unions on labor) then they should simply be regarded at too slow or inept to adapt and let the natural course of the companies death throes occur. Does it suck for the people employed there and their shareholders? Sure. But the shareholders should have insisted on better management. And the workers are free to go elsewhere to work.

"But the poor workers, what if they can't find another auto-industry job?" Then they'll need to find something else they are qualified for and go to work there, or become part of the U.S. frictional unemployment statistic while they retrain themselves for a different role. "But what if there aren't any other jobs for them in the area?" Then they should take the time to relocate and go somewhere where the job prospects are better. "What if they can't relocate?" Find a way, if your serious about being responsible for yourself and your families welfare, you will find a way. Go online, find something, contact people in a different area, figure something out. No one owes you work. You need to do for yourself. The taxpayers aren't and shouldn't be responsible to bail you out and ensure you a job. If your Unions function in such a way as to choke the industry they work for and ultimately drive your company to extinction by keeping them ransomed to overpriced labor, then perhaps you should have had better Union leadership, change it.

Ultimately everyone is responsible for themselves.

The last thing we need is this country giving the government any more socialized control over business. Pelosi talks of bailing out the auto-industry, but "keeping even stricter controls on executive pay!" what a laugh. The auto-industry needs major overhauls to keep it viable and sustainable, and all this would do is throw money away on a failing industry to prop it up for another few months. Let the nature of the free market, and nature of business take its natural course. Let GM fail. Let Chrystler follow. If these companies aren't competitve, they should go under and trim the fat from the industry. Better companies will take their place, which will ultimately be better for everyone.

The good of society as a whole should not be sacrificed at the altar of labors brigands.

Support Obama? Go to Hell!

Priest: No communion for Obama supporters
Priest says it's because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Stuff like this makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside that I dropped this junk 16 years ago.

Supporting a pro-choice candidate now constitutes cooperating with intrinsic evil? What does supporting a candidate that put us on a path to a war without end that's cost the lives of thousands of our service men and women, and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost constitute then? I can only assume this blowhard voted for Bush. Even my late Grandmother who bless her heart, still voted for Bush (in Florida no less) based pretty much solely on the abortion issue alone at least the first time around, before the end of her life was dismayed at the terrible cost of life in Iraq that's resulted in part from her choice.

It's arrogant men like this priest that spawned my initial questioning and eventual rejection of the catholic faith - there are Catholics, and Bishops no less that do not condemn their followers for supporting Democrats, and even some themselves that support them. On what authority does this egotistical buffoon get off on condemning his followers? When I read stuff like this, it makes me glad I got away from all that when I did.

WotLK 11 / 13 / 08

Today!

Xmas Culture Wars

'Why Believe in a God?' Ad Campaign Launches on D.C. Buses

"Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday."

I'm torn on this.

Of course the ad is right, you should act in a way that is good simply for the fact that it is good, and you really do not need to believe in a god in order to be an ethical and moral person... but...

I've never been a fan of my fellow humanists/agnostics/atheists trying to deliver the message in overly provocative ways. On it's own, this ad isn't too bad, but the timing at christmas is bound to offend a number of people. Since I've come to terms with my beliefs and no longer fear nor care about being ostracized for them, I've generally taken the route of respectful disagreement with those of religious sentiment. In my youth when first figuring out what I believed, I was a little more hostile in my views on and against religion, but I've mellowed considerably as I've gotten older. Part of that is I don't have anyone in my face anymore denouncing me, and don't have people looking down on me for it, and part of that I think is living where I am now. But I've also come to see that religion in and of itself isn't evil as I originally started to think when I first figured out I didn't believe. Don't get me wrong, a lot of evil has been, and still manages to be perpetrated in the name of religion, but religion itself is little more than the tool that allows it - in good hands religion can be used for good and sometimes really does make a person better, but in the wrong hands it can be used to stir the worst in humanity.

Regardless though, convincing people about your point generally works best if you don't put them on the defensive. If you come across as rude, inconsiderate, confrontational, or disrespectful, you aren't likely to win many friends from the opposition. And I know my view puts me in the minority - and that's why I always cringe whenever I see hot headed atheists in forums spouting off about how terrible and awful religion is and how dumb and stupid the people are that believe in it. That's a terrible way to win converts. You aren't going to get people to think if you are calling them names, at best you get ignored, at worst you harden their hearts to your cause and make them react negatively to you and anyone associated with your cause in the future. This is why when at family gatherings, I don't make a scene about not joining in their Grace prayer before eating, or why if I've accompanied them to a mass, I sit quietly and do not participate, but do not act in any kind of disrespectful manner.

It is far better to be respectful of other people's beliefs, and disagree with them than to make an ass out of yourself and by association the other people who believe as you do. Consider the difference: "I can't understand how you believe in "God", why the hell are you so stupid?" to "I'm trying to understand why you believe in "God". How come you don't believe in another god like Zeus?" The first immediately puts your target into the defensive, and probably makes them dislike you right from the start. The second, makes it look like you care about them, and gently prods them to think about the why behind their decision. It doesn't force them to come to grips with belief or non-belief right away, but if they are have any kind of intellectual capacity, they might think through the why of disbelief in all other gods, and then see the similarities to their own god, whether or not they are ready to accept it. Almost all religious people will be immediately put off by the first method, all but the most rabid religious zealots will probably react in a mild and considerate manner when presented with the second. It's like the famous Aesop's Fable about the North Wind and the Sun: "Kindness, gentleness, and persuasion win where force fails."

And while this ad campaign isn't calling people names, it's going to provoke some negative feelings amongst the religious folk that feel they're being attacked during a time they consider holy. So as much as they might be right, the message might well get completely lost.

Then there's this little nugget:
"In mid-October, the American Family Association started selling buttons that say "It's OK to say Merry Christmas." The humanists' entry into the marketplace of ideas did not impress AFA president Tim Wildmon.

"It's a stupid ad," he said. ,"How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world."

Now, of course someone from the AFA is going to think in this way, but I want to discuss the idea here. How do we define "good" if we don't believe in god? I'd argue its something that is right, virtuous, beneficent, honorable, or ethical. But the question is a good one, and one that has been pondered by philosophers for ages. As far back as Plato, he asked in his Euthyphro: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

The answer to this is something very interesting to ponder. I come down on the side that a thing is good because it is good. Were god(s) real there could be no redefinition of evil to good by declaration, evil is evil because it is, good is good because it is - in Ayn Rand Objectivism terms "A is A", "reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears". Which means we don't require a definition by god(s) in order to understand what is good and evil. And I think history bears this out - there are large sections in the world that do not believe in the judeo-christian god, and do not follow one of the abrahamic religions, and yet, the general consensus of what is good, and what is evil is relatively uniform across all cultures.

"Don't Murder" "Don't Steal" "Do undo others as you would have them do unto you" "Do no harm" From the Ten Commandments, to the Four Noble Truths and Eight-fold Path, to the exhortations of the pagan goddess, to the secular (well at least these days, you'll find few Doctors today who believe the Greek gods are real) Hippocratic Oath... the message is the same. Don't harm your fellow human beings, don't harm what is around you. And this is an entirely human concept. Nature quite clearly comes into play decidedly neutral. Bad things happen, good things happen, (from a human perspective) and nature doesn't seem to care one way or another. But we define good and evil in terms of what is good or bad for us.

And it doesn't take belief in the judeo-christian god or an abrahamic faith to see what is good and what is evil, and to choose rationally to do that which is good. When I choose to act in a way that is good, I do not do so out of fear of punishment or eternal damnation, I do not do so out of a hope of reward or eternal bliss, I do so simply because it is right, and proper, and good. I need no priest to tell me what is good and what is evil (as much as that may scare them in term of losing influence), I need no god to do so. I do not define what is good and evil, good is good completely independent of what I personally feel or want it to be. I could no more define evil to be good, or good to be evil, than could a god. I must simply recognize that which is good, and act accordingly. When I do so, it is out respect for the fellow life that shares this planet with me.

Feinstein tries to fight the Free Market

Feinstein Urges Web Sites Not to Sell Scalped Inauguration Tickets
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is overseeing Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony, is asking Web sites like eBay not to sell scalped inauguration tickets -- which could be sold for up to $40,000 online.

"These tickets are given for free to people. This is a major civic event of the time, and no one pays for their tickets, and we believe no one should be required to pay for their tickets," Feinstein said in an interview."

Feinstein is one Democrat I've never really liked. And here would be a place where I part ways with the more liberal leaning fiscal people.

Things have value. Whether you price them appropriately or not, a thing has value. Now, it may not be valued by all people equally, and it may be more highly valued by some more than others or vice versa, but you can't prevent a thing from having value.

There are a limited number of seats and tickets for the inauguration, for a President Elect that people are extremely interested in seeing, due to the historic nature of his election. Thus, there are a lot of people who want tickets to see the inauguration, and the limited quantities make it so that the value of those tickets, particularly to the people who really want to see it badly, have a high value. Now, I don't personally value the tickets all that much, I'm happy we elected President Elect Obama, and I might want to watch the inauguration on TV (or more likely youtube after the fact), but I'm just not caught up in the celebrity fascination of the election, I'm just glad we have someone I think will be very competent in the position.

But that's me, that's not a lot of other people. There are a lot of people out there that so desperately want these tickets they are willing to pay for them. Some want them so bad they are willing to pay a lot of money for them.

So there is a market for these tickets. And now Diane Feinstein wants the government to interfere and get in the way of people's free exchange of goods.

I've got news for you Diane... no one is "required" to pay for their tickets. It's just your crappy scheme of lottery-like distribution doesn't efficiently get the tickets to those that truly want them the most. Ticket scalping therefore corrects some of the problems your system causes, by getting some of the lucky lottery winners cash for a ticket they don't value as highly as the people who are willing to pay for them. Lucky for them, cash is the great equalizer. They people who want the tickets and the people who have the tickets don't need to barter some other good between themselves, they can just use cash for the transaction and correct the stupid pricing problems your system has caused. Or maybe you're just mad because you're realizing you don't get a cut of the action, since you're used to sticking your grubby government fingers into everything to take away what people rightfully earn.

Government should let the people interact freely in the marketplace. Again, no one is required to buy the tickets. If the auction prices are too high, no one has to pay it they can opt not to attend. If the auction prices are just right, then pay it and get to see the inauguration. If they are too low, buy the tickets and resell them for more. What is the bloody problem with that?

CA Prop 8 In Legal Limbo for now...

Backers focused Prop. 8 battle beyond marriage

"Marriage has been protected," said Cal Schell, 65, a resident of the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova.

Schell said he felt sad that "there's a lot of people who have a lot of angst over this. But it is very important that this be protected. . . . Go to any country, any place in the world. Marriage between a man and a woman has been a part of our being clear back to the days of early time."

And this is how a lot of the anti-Equal Protection people are total fucking idiots. Go to Europe, and lots of the countries there allow for same-sex marriage. Take a look at the world, in terms of history throughout time, and "traditional marriage" according to the norms throughout history around the world...

is actually one man, and a whole bunch of women. That's right, world-wide throughout time, "traditional" marriage is actually a man and a bunch of concubines. The religious right have this Leave it to Beaver victorian fantasy world they've conjured up in their small minds and are trying to play it off as some kind of actual reality.

But in so doing, they have stripped rights away from a minority. There are those who will say that comparisons to the Civil Rights movement are invalid, but lets think about this for a little. Certainly, the prejudice and bigotry that gay individuals have experienced is not identical to that which black Americans have. Gays do not have a history of having been slaves. Gays can pass for straight easily as long as they don't come out of the closet, and aren't judged on something as hard to hide as skin color. But the principle behind what's going on here is the same. A minority of individuals, not based on race this time, but sexual orientation, have been targeted by a tyranny of the majority, and have been stripped of Rights they should have Constitutionally protected. There are those that say "Civil Unions are good enough for gays." But Civil Unions, and Marriage are not equal, and in any case we know from past Segregation laws that "Separate but Equal" does not work. In most cases Civil Unions only approximate Marriage rights, and in any case, by definition they must treat gay and straight individuals differently. This leads to the fact that gays are not treated equally under the law, as they should be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Some history...

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This Amendment was enacted shortly after the Civil War, after slavery was abolished. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, and in response many Southern ex-slave States enacted Black Codes. These were laws to severely limit the rights of Blacks from owning property, and enforcing legal contracts. The Equal Protection clause was crafted in reaction to this, to makes sure that all citizens were treated equally under the law.

Now, it's taken decades to try and undo all the problems of slavery and racism that have plagued this country, and in some cases, things still aren't positively resolved. We've come a long way, no doubt, to have been able to elect a Black president in Barack Obama. But racism hasn't ended, and at its core, racism is fueled by bigotry. But the same principle of bigotry is being used to try and suppress the rights of gays today, to try and single them out as someting other, something different, and limit their protection under the law because of that difference.

So, it is surprising when reports that: "African American voters played a crucial role in the outcome. An exit poll of California voters showed that black voters sided in favor of the measure by margins of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout -- spurred by Barack Obama's campaign for president -- was unusually large, making up roughly 10% of the voters."... come out.

Here are a group of people who historically have been oppressed, coming out in large numbers in favor of stripping others of their rights and oppressing others. Now, I don't want to go into sweeping generalizations, but that a majority of African American voters in CA could agree to this just seems unbelievable to me. I don't think of the black population as a homogenous whole, certainly there are liberal and conservative black voters. But to not be able to step back and put yourself into someone elses shoes and know after the struggle African Americans have gone through historically for equality under the law, just blows me away.

So I guess at this point there are legal challenges against CA Prop 8, leaving it's status in legal limbo. Opponents are now arguing that the ballot initiative is overbroad and that it fundamentally Revises the State Constitution to gut it of Equal Protection. It is legal to amend the Constitution by ballot initiative with a simple majority, but it is not legal to revise it to gut it of protections, and anything like that must go through a legislative process with a super majority to pass. Opponents have been protesting the passage of the law, and are now trying to have the CA Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Equal Protection this past year and allowed same-sex marriages to start in the State, to overturn it.

Here's hoping they are able to have this overturned. A tyranny of the majority should never be able to strip fundamental rights from another small group of minorities.

Where do the Republicans go from here?

Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says

"(CNN) -- A conservative leader Friday laid the Republican Party's poor showing at the polls at the feet of moderates who, he argues, led the party away from its core principles.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says the GOP must return to conservative principles.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says the GOP must return to conservative principles.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.

"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.

Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics."

I think this guy is so out of touch he just can't see what happened. I think there were a few things that did the Republicans in, and this is coming from an outside observer obviously, but here's what I saw:

Republican's got away from their core message of smaller, more efficient and less obtrusive government. While they were in control of the Congress and White House, they went crazy with spending, while not even trying to balance the budget to pay for what they were planning. You can't always balance the budget year to year, sometimes things like economic slowdowns and booms exaggerate the tax revenue, but you don't want to run on credit forever. Both tax cuts and government spending can stimulate the economy, but both will have downside costs as well. We cut taxes and increased spending though, and that drove us into record deficits that have ballooned the national debt, and now having to deal with the credit crisis, our options are limited in terms of what we can do. The Republicans really just threw away their reputation as the fiscally responsible party. They're going to need to regain that if they want to find their way back into the publics trust.

Not only did they preside over huge government increases in spending without coming up with a plan to pay for it (and we can't forget how actually huge a portion of that has been in war expenditures), they've presided over some of the largest increases in Federal government power grabs in recent history. Things like the Patriot Act, trying to step in personal family matters like the case of Terri Schiavo, getting away from States rights issues in an effort to Federally mandate morality with stuff like the Defense of Marriage Act... all these things are moves to bigger government, more intrusive government. That generally runs counter to the anti-Federalist leanings of many modern republicans, and we got there by following the hard core neo-cons into ill-attempted policies of government expansion, rather than the core principles of republican limited government.

We have to take into account the corruption and scandals that plagued the party in the mid-term elections two years ago... some of the Republican leadership let their power go to their heads and it showed, they got arrogant, thought they were above the law and they got caught, and it lead to a public perception of distrust of the party - the backlash started the movement towards the Democrats.

Then there has been the mismanaged Bush Administration. From anything like the War in Iraq, to Hurricane Katrina, there have been humongous mistakes made. Not only have their been mistakes made, they have gone on as I stated above and tried to fix them with larger government, expanded Federal power. Even a lot of Republicans are realistically admitting that the Bush Administration has caused the party a great deal of harm.

So I think the party needs to step back and look for new leadership. I think they need to re-evaluated their core principles and try and decide if they are a party of limited government, or expanded social conservative government. I think they should be moving to the former because the latter hasn't seemed to work well. The other problem with expanded government is that your party doesn't always retain control, as we have seen. And if expanded power is the norm, then when your party loses control, what might the opposition decide to do with it? If you limit the governments control, and limit that power, then there is less to fear from the opposition in terms what they may screw up when you lose power I can remember a number of years ago when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House, and they were talking about trying to pass legislation to stop filibustering, so they could get their policies through without hindrance, and I remember thinking to myself, wow... are you sure you really want to do that? What happens when the pendulum swings and you lose control to the Democrats, as is historically speaking, likely to happen after a little while? I bet now that it has, the remaining Republicans are probably happy they did not get rid of one of the only means they currently have to put some check and balance into the legislative process.

Anyway, Republicans really need to re-evaluate what their core message is, and how that's going to resonate with the public at large. We are still a right of center country, both fiscally and socially. Our "center" is still right of the worlds "center", so there should still be a place for the party to come back to. But as I think McCain aptly demonstrated, ignoring the independent middle in order to pander to the more radical and extreme elements in the party, is a losing strategy. You can't forget your base, but you also can't win with just them, you need to bring the moderates to the table and form a coalition to win.

I sincerely hope the Republicans get their stuff figured out and do some soul searching and figure out the answers to their current problems, because I personally am not too excited by the prospect of total Democratic rule in Washington. I like Obama, I think he's going to prove to be a great leader, but I don't trust either party to run things without the other (or some other) there to check and balance them, and keep them honest.

Palin Pick - After the Fact - FoxNews

Palin...Qualified? FOX and O'Reilly Expose the Truth!

Embedding is turned off for the video, but it's pretty unbelievable if you go watch it...

Carl Cameron:
"But, early on, they began to discover that there were these gaps in her knowledge, and I just want to rattle off a couple of things that insiders say she just simply didn't know. There were real problems with basic civics, government structures, municipal, state, and federal government responsibilities. She didn't know the countries involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement we're told, those of course would be the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA a major campaign issue, that would have been something of a deficit. We're told she wasn't able to name all of the countries in North America as part of that debate, and she didn't understand McCain aides told me today, that Africa was a continent and not a country, and actually asked them they argue, they say, if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent."

It goes on, but wow...

And this is from FoxNews and O'Reilly who have been singing her praises since she was picked.

We dodged a real bullet as a nation with regards to her.

[edit:] It appears the not knowing Africa was a Continent story was a fake, maybe, it's still not confirmed false, but it's looking likely. Either way I stand by my statement, we dodged a real catastrophe with her.

Commemorate the Obama Victory

MoveOn.org is offering an Obama "Yes We Did" sticker to anyone that wants them, free of charge, free shipping. It's designed by artist Shepard Fairey, who did the iconic "Hope" poster for Obama.

You can get them here:
Yes We Did!

but sign up for them quick, there is apparently limited quantities, and they are going fast.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly...

The Good:
1) President Elect Barack Obama wins!

2) MA Passes Question 2, putting possession of an ounce of marijuana or less for personal use down to a civil offense, punishable by fine rather than prison time. Finally the crime is not punished way worse than the offense should be.

3) NC Senate race, Democrat Hagan soundly defeats fear mongering atheist hater Republican Dole.

4) CA Proposition 4 voted down, Prop 4 would have further limited Abortion rights.

5) CO Amendment 48 voted down, Amendment 48 would have effectively banned abortion by defining a "person" as "any human life from fertilization", which would have given a non-sentient clump of cells the same rights to "life, liberty, and property" as a fully grown sentient human being.

6) MI Prop 1 passes, Michigan allowing controlled distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. I'll say it again, you just aren't going to convince me a cancer patient suffering the agony of the disease and chemotherapy treatment should be considered a criminal if the medical properties of marijuana can help alleviate some of that pain. We have legal morphine and chemically addictive drugs used as legitimate medicine, yet somehow pot is pure evil? Yeah, no. Marijuana is about as bad as the legal drug Alcohol, and less bad in some respects. I don't smoke. I do drink. But the whole push to keep controlled medical marijuana illegal is just dumb.

7) MI Prop 2 passes, Michigan allows for Stem Cell research.

8) SD Initiative 1 voted down, South Dakota votes down increased limits on abortion rights.

9) WA Initiative 1000 passes, Washington allows mentally competent terminally ill patients to rationally decide to end their life with dignity.

10) NB Initiative 424 passes, Nebraska no longer allows the State to discriminate against or give preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting.

11) Convicted felon Ted Stevens voted out of Office in Alaska.

12) Democrats prevented from attaining a Filibuster-proof Majority.


The Bad:
1) MA votes down Question 1, which would have done away with the State Income Tax. This will make sure that the MA State Government continues a glut of wasteful spending which crowds out private investment and cuts into long term economic growth.

2) Republican Sununu gets voted out of office in New Hampshire, replaced by Democrat challenger Shaheen. One of the last moderate North East Republicans to fall to the backlash over neo-con corruption and ineptitude that swept the Party. It's men like Sununu that the Republican Party desperately needs to get themselves back on a right course. Shaheen isn't bad, and I think she'll do a fine job. But the Republican party needs to have it's moderates reset the direction of the party, and wrest control back away from the neo-cons that have steered it into a fatal crash - but it's going to make it tough to do when the moderates all over took the bullet for their radical brethren.

3) AR Proposition 102 passes, amending the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Not good, but also not surprising.

4) FL Amendment 2 passes, amending the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Not good, but again, expected.

5) CO Amendment 46 voted down - Passing this would prohibit the State of Colorado from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting.



The Ugly:
1) CA Proposition 8 passes... California voters opted to amend their State Constitution to strip rights away from some of their citizens. A major setback for those in this Country that wish to see the Law of the land offer Constitutional Equal Protection to all its citizens.

2) AR Initiative 1 passes... Arkansas voters passed an initiative to ban unmarried sexual partners from adopting children - effectively preventing gay couples from raising families as they can not legally marry in the State.

BARACK OBAMA WINS!!!

That is all. Going to bed happy now.

Just watched John McCain's concession speech - which was actually quite good, humble, and showed the class of the old McCain I once respected.

Happy day... we've finally won our country back from the radical neo-con agenda.

Election Day!

It's finally here:

National:


[edit:] took down the rest of the State by State widgets, since the were lagging the hell out of the site.

Sarah Palin Pranked

(Full Version) - Sarah Palin Prank Phone Call


Given ample opportunities to spot this was a prank, Palin fails to recognize it. Surprised? No.

Final Polls heading into the last day...

Nearing the End of a Scary Era

Just in case you forget where we're coming out of from the last 8 years under Bush...
(I got this from a newspaper article in the Boston Metro)

Bush Presidency Timeline:
----
March 2001 - President Bush requests a delay in the release of presidential records followed by an executive order that limits access to personal presidential papers starting from Reagan's era.

April 2001 - The Bush tax cuts are enacted, giving $1.65 trillion in cuts to large corporations and the wealthiest in the country. It is the group that sees the largest decrease overall.

August 2001 - A memo titled "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike US" crosses Bush's desk.

September 2001 - The World Trade Center and the Pentagon are attacked. Bush is told of the news while reading "My Pet Goat" to a class of young kids. He doesn't move for seven minutes.

October 2001 - Bush signs into law the Patriot Act, which gives the government unprecedented rights to search people's medical, telephone, and email records.

June 2002 - Bush makes comments revealing his "Bush Doctrine". He says the U.S. should initiate preemptive wars when the threat is perceived as great enough. He has not declared war.

September 2002 - Bush asks Congress to grant him the authority to use military force against Iraq. They oblige.

February 2003 - The Secretary of State Colin Powell states that Iraq is harboring weapons of mass destruction. They are never found, but Intelligence reports are later found to have been manipulated in the Administrations favor.

March 2003 - Under the premise that Iraq has WMD's, America invades the country with a fierce "shock and awe" campaign, unloading tons of bombs upon the city in a late night attack.

May 2003 - Bush takes advantage of a photo-op in front of an aircraft carrier with a banner bearing the words "Mission Accomplished" across it.

June 2003 - The Federal Communications Commision announces pushes for more media consolidation.

February 2004 - Bush backs a Constitutional amendment denying any state the right to recognize gay marriage.

April 2004 - Photos are leaked showing U.S. solidiers abusing priosners at Abu Ghraib.

September 2004 - The Federal Deficit reaches a record high, approaching nearly $1 trillion. Former President Bill Clinton handed Bush more than $500 billion in surplus when he took office.

March 2005 - Bush interjects the federal government in the case of incapacitated Terri Schiavo, banning doctors from pulling the feeding tube she depended on.

August 2005 - Hurricane Katrina destroys New Orleans. Bush travels the country for photo-ops for two days before sending aid.

April 2006 - New agencies report that Bush has issued "signing statements" for 750 laws, which grant him the authority to override those laws if his interpretation of the Constitution does not provide for them.

May 2007 - Bush signs a directive that gives himself complete control of all three branches of government in cases where "extraordinary disaster" warrant it.

March 2007 - It is revealed that Bush has used a third of his presidency - 879 days - for vacation. The death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq reaches 4,000; Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at over half a million.

September 2008 - Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt, sending the economy into the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Bush presided over an almost total deregulation of Wall Street's financial firms.
----
So, unprecedented power grabs, expansion of Federal Government powers by one of the most inept Administrations ever, that has caused years international ill-will that will last for years to come, trillions of dollars of damage to the U.S. economy, and that still hasn't found our enemy #1: Bin Laden from one of the most devastating attacks on U.S. soil in ages.

Think of that SNL skit with Will Ferrel playing Bush.
"John McCain was there for me 90% of the time. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush. Think of me when you think of voting for John McCain. Think of this face, when you go into the Voting booth, and pull the lever on November 4th."

Happy Halloween / Samhain!

Pictures courtesy of Lolcats

McCain & Rashid Khalidi

Keith Olbermann


Get past the hyper-partisan spin of Mr. Olbermann, and you see he has a valid point.

McCain has been trying to play the guilt by association game with Obama.

Obama & Ayers, a rehabilitated 1960's domestic terrorist.

Obama & Rashid Khalidi, involved with the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

But maybe his campaign failed to realize that McCain actually gave money to Khalidi as well.

WAY MORE than Obama or Ayers did. $440,873 worth of money.

So McCain is now linked to the same people that Obama is: Ayers and Khalidi

MA State Ballot Questions 2008

Question 1
A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.

"41% waste in Massachusetts state government," reveals survey. Eliminating government waste is one reason to vote "Yes." Your "Yes" vote cuts your state income taxes 50% starting this January 1st - and eliminates the last 50% next January 1st. For you and for 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers. Your "Yes" vote gives back $3,700 each to 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers - including you - on average when we end the state income tax. $3,700. Each worker. Every year.

Your "Yes" vote will create hundreds of thousands of new Massachusetts jobs.

Your "Yes" vote will NOT raise your property taxes NOR any other taxes.

Your "Yes" vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts, of any essential government services.

Your "Yes" vote rolls back state government spending 27% - $47.3 billion to $34.7 billion - more than state government spending in 1999.

3,400,000 Massachusetts workers, taxpayers and their families need your help. Please vote "Yes."

---------------------------------------------------
Question 2
A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

A YES vote removes the threat of arrest, jail, loss of student loans, loss of driver's licenses, and other sanctions for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. Instead, a $100 fine, similar to a speeding ticket, would be imposed. Question 2 would end the creation of a permanent record (CORI) and barriers to housing and employment. Police would be freed up to focus on serious crimes, rather than arresting 7,500 people annually for marijuana possession. Taxpayers would save $30 million a year in arrest costs. All other marijuana-related crimes, like sales or DUIs, remain untouched. Stricter than current law, juveniles would have their parent(s) notified and must complete a drug awareness program and community service. Question 2 would not increase marijuana use. Eleven other states have similar laws and have shown no increase in marijuana use. Let the punishment fit the crime. Vote "YES" on Question 2.



These are the two ballot initiatives I feel most strongly about. I want to say, I know that voting Yes on 1, will cause the government to have to cut some services. I'm ok with that. It will force the government to have to tighten its belt and cut some of the wasteful pork they tend to rubber stamp into law in this State with a just about no Republican opposition to Democratic policy. There may be some good services lost, but the benefit will be greater overall if we force them to run a tight ship.

Yes on 2 is just common sense to me. I don't use marijuana. I'm not an advocate of marijuana use. But the law should have the punishment fit the crime. If you use marijuana, and only keep enough to use personally, then you should not be sent to jail. Marijuana is about as bad as alcohol, and less bad in some respects - yet alcohol is legal and free to use. But most importantly, it will free the police force from wasting time on these petty offenses, to focus on more serious crime threats.

Question 3 involves banning Dog Racing. I'm split and still undecided on this. My heart says Vote yes, and save the dogs from being forced into racing. My mind says the opponents have some valid points about the job loss that would occurr. But I'm still trying to figure out how to vote on this and need to think about it more.

Anyway, I suspect I'll be on the losing side of at least the first two ballot propositions, but I hope not. If you haven't considered it, and your live in MA, at least think about voting Yes on 1 & 2. There are compelling reasons to support both of these initiatives.

CA Prop 8: NO

Vote No on Prop 8

In the off chance I'm reaching any undecided (on this ballot initiative) California voters, who for some bizarre reason care what I think; I urge you to vote "NO" on Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 seeks to take away & deny Marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. California was the second State behind Massachusetts to allow same-sex couples to marry (Connecticut just joined them as the third). Proposition 8 will amend the CA Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Polls have recently shown that the ballot initiative to be gaining strength with a barrage of Ads blanketing the State paid for by mostly out of State funds.

This is an important issue that should concern everyone who favors fairness and equality under the law. California tends to be a bellwether State when it comes to issues like this, and it is extremely important that they don't deny their citizens Equal Protection under the law that should be guarunteed under the Constitution.

Prop 8 is discriminatory plain and simple. Please do not support this ballot initiative to strip your fellow citizens of their rights.