What's on my mind grapes?

Young at heart

2011-03-10T23:59:00.002-06:00

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about getting older. Well, that's not accurate, I've been thinking about growing up. I'm plenty old enough to grow up at this point. The Craig Ferguson clip is rambling nonsense mostly but he does capture something that is true about our society. We do value youth very highly, and we're much more permissive of grown-ass men acting like children. I would never be able to find a group of guys my age to take a day off work and go play paintball with back in the 1950's. It's not necessarily a bad thing, people are free more than they have been in the past to pursue their hobbies and past times and time wasters, and it's a big component of enjoying life.

The side effect though is that there isn't the same stigma to being a man-child as there used to be. I know that has had a big impact on how I have lived my life up until now and how I have managed my priorities. And now, when I want to be the man I thought I would need to be at this time in my life to be able to have all the things I want (a marriage, a house, and eventually kids), I sometimes find myself lacking. Yet I know that I'm on the right track now, and I feel good about it.

Hell, earlier today I was riding around on top of a palate cart at work maneuvering myself around by pushing off the walls until I got to the other side of the building. I still feel like I'm maturing though. At least the floor wasn't lava.

Correspondence from a crazy person #3

2009-02-16T21:20:00.004-06:00

This correspondence came after a throw away line given at the end of what was a very good special comment from Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Yeah you probably didn't catch it but at the end he quoted Oliver Cromwell, a contentious figure in Irish-English history. It probably didn't deserve this response:

" I loved your special comment about Dick Cheney. At least until the last bit where you quoted from Oliver Cromwell. As someone from Irish heritage it infuriates me whenever someone references him as if he were a great or good man. The monster waged a religious war upon the peoples of Ireland and Scotland, burning people alive inside of churches. He was a hero to the English of Ulster in their continued violence against the Catholics of northern Ireland. I make no attempt to spare either side from their right blame in the continuance of the troubles. But to remember Cromwell as anything other than a bloodthirsty dog is to allow the truth to be dictated by the victor and not by reality. A zealot and a monster is all he ever was, who slaughtered innocent women and children refuged in the house of God.

That aside, I love your show and I wish you continued success.

God bless,
rich aycock "

This letter is particularly crazy because, well, I don't represent history entirely accurately either, and also I completely misrepresent myself as someone who is at all religious. I'm gonna stop putting my name on these.

Correspondence from a crazy person #2

2009-02-13T00:03:00.002-06:00

In this, the second installment of me acting crotchety towards the world in general, I take offense to this political cartoon:

I would be surprised if anyone else reading this DIDN'T find the cartoon pretty offensive. It's a pretty big risk any time you go for the nuclear option and compare somebody to the Nazis. You could get an e-mail like this:

"I can imagine you probably got quite a bit of e-mail after your cartoon that not so subtly compared Pelosi to a Nazi leader. I won't even get into how offensive that is, I'll only remind you that you probably were horribly offended any time anyone compared Bush or any member of his administration to Nazis. In neither case is the comparison anything other than grossly unfair and borderline irresponsible.

Since I'm sure that point has been brought up plenty, I'd like to take issue with the content of the cartoon BEFORE the last panel. On what basis do you have Nancy Pelosi saying that certain people should be killed, and that others should (if I got the implication correct) be sterilized? If that's a criticism of any policy of hers or of anything that she or for that matter any other liberal leader has ever said, then it's one I've never heard. It seems to me it's an extension of the perceived disregard for human life that liberals have based solely on the stance that abortion should be legal. It's a ridiculous stretch, and one that I hope you don't take seriously.

The whole cartoon is a conflation of several legitimate viewpoints on debatable issues including welfare, contraception, sex education, abortion rights, and the responsibilities of government for caring for it's citizens, along with radical ideas that are held mostly only by imaginary, hedonistic, irresponsible, immoral liberals that want to practice some sort of rebirth of eugenics. It seems pretty hypocritical to me to see this cartoon when I remember the outrage you expressed in post-Katrina cartoons at the taxpayers having to help pay for the housing of people who had been so "irresponsible" as to build homes on the coast.

The message I can only infer from the cartoon was supposed to be: "We should think about the policies that are being implemented by leaders on the left and what they can lead to if we aren't careful." But all I take away is that the die-hards on the right will never understand what motivates liberals, or what we care about, and comparisons like these make me doubt if any really care to try.

I wish I could have kept more anger out of this e-mail, but the Nazi comparison always makes my blood boil. That aside I hope you're well."

-Now it's important to note that this e-mail could not be nearly as vitriolic as the one to blockbuster. This particular cartoonist is somebody that I e-mail back and forth with kinda frequently, and while his ideas may be crazy and outdated, he's always been a nice, respectful guy in our correspondence, and is amazingly good at responding to e-mail. Much better than I am in fact, and he probably gets about 20x as much. If I get his permission I'll probably put the whole of the back and forth about this cartoon on the blog.

Correspondence from a crazy person

2009-02-11T17:18:00.001-06:00

The first in a series where I share with you the ridiculous e-mails I send to people who offend me.

Today's episode has me upset about this story:
Mexico's voodoo promo for soccer match gets sponsor

Ever since this little episode, the relationship between US and Mexican soccer fans has been a bit of a sore spot for me. As far as I'm concerned they can all go die in a fucking fire. I don't excuse their drunkenness, nor the fucked up little-brother complex that they have with the US. So I might have gone a bit overboard when I wrote this e-mail to Blockbuster:

"Before I begin I want to make sure that I am not responding to something that is an exaggeration or a prank. So I sincerely hope that this story is untrue, and I would like to receive assurance that it is not:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6250803.html

So if the story is a fraud, then I apologize for hastily jumping to conclusions. If not though, please take the following to heart:

Are you out of your mother-fucking minds?! I cannot believe that you would sponsor such an offensive campaign. It's beyond galling that you could allow your stores to hand out voodoo dolls representing American players, representing American citizens. Your stores are actually encouraging people to stick pins into effigies of the American team! Fuck the fact that voodoo is bullshit, I'm not complaining because I'm as delusional as some of the fucking dips that hope this will in any way help their national side. It's the absolutely violent disrespect that you have shown for US citizens that enrages me. I have canceled my Blockbuster DVD rental subscription, and will not be sending back the DVDs I have out. I am going to burn them and you will never get a fucking dime from me for them. I will also make sure that none of my friends or family ever step foot in a Blockbuster store ever again. No apology or action can ever convince me to change my mind on the matter. Go to hell."

For the record, I don't have a blockbuster subscription, and I don't have any dvds of theirs. I am though putting them on the banned list, and I encourage anyone else to as well.

Three days til pitchers and catchers report!

2009-02-10T00:06:00.008-06:00

The first benchmark of the 2009 season is almost upon us, and just a few days removed from the Bill Murray sanctioned groundhog day comes the baseball equivalent. Baseball Prospectus, the Cadillac of analytical statistic-based performance predictions, has released their projections for the 2009 season. It's surely comforting to see the Cubbies projected as run-away favorites in their division, but it's certainly not news. With Houston and St. Louis at least two years away from their prospects and rookies developing to the point that they can compete again, and Milwaukee falling apart at the seams faster than Ben Sheet's elbow, the path is pretty clear for NL Central dominance. (There have been rumblings of Cincy as a sleeper team to look out for, but that's a bigger long shot than A-Rod winning the Roberto Clemente award in 2009) So with the obvious aside let's get on to the subtle good news.

Now OF COURSE this is only a projection, but I can't deny that seeing the Cleveland Indians winning the AL Central made me smile. I've never been a fan of AL baseball, but I now have a favorite AL team, the Cleveland Indians. I've always been a defender of Kerry Wood, a man who could have abandoned Chicago a hundred times but always wanted to make sure he did something to repay the city and his fans. Certainly not a role-model (other than to the socialite, hot tub surfing crowd) but a good guy whose charitable contributions helped the city for many years. And now he's an Indian, and a team mate of the former Cub who I had a child-like hero worship for, Mark DeRosa. (I'll have to get a DeRosa #7 to hang next to my Vaughn #99) In my mind, you can't get any more respectable than a guy who played 6 different positions in a season and always managed to contribute offensively. He always did what was asked of him and more because his #1 priority was to do what was right for the team. He's the kind of guy Mike Singletary would love.

So now, I go into 2009 excited and hopeful. For the first time I'll be following two teams (You can't think of a fraction small enough to compare how much I want the Indians to succeed versus how much I want the cubbies to succeed), and the outlook for both of them is looking pretty rosy. All I have to say is, when I get 6 bleacher seats for the Cubs v Indians home series in June, who are the other 5 people who are gonna come with to be the D, e, O, S, and A?

Bless us with Anger

2009-01-28T15:11:00.001-06:00

Yesterday* was the realization of over a year’s worth of work done by millions of Americans in an effort to right the course of their country. As 2 million Americans flooded the national mall in DC, millions more tuned in at home to witness one of the most impressive moments in our history. Like everyone else I was truly moved. Another speech though that went almost unheard was that of that of Gene Robinson, known as "the gay bishop", an openly gay preacher. The prayer he gave opened an event that was carried by HBO, but HBO did not air the prayer. While conspiracy rumors swirl around the gay blogoshphere, HBO claims it was an honest mistake. You can read the whole speech here and I encourage you to before reading the rest of the post.

As much as it was about Obama, what yesterday* also meant to me was the end of an era that inspired more anger than any since probably the days of vietnam. And yet it wasn't enough to keep anything from happening it seemed. The protests seemed to have no effect, the shoe option wasn't on the table back then... There has been so much to be angry about for so long.

For 6 long years we have been blessed with anger. Anger at the indifference to the lives of average Americans shown by our leaders. Anger at the treatment of our poor, our sick, our wounded military men and women. Anger at the lies that we have been expected to swallow.

We have been blessed with tears. Tears for our fellow citizens lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans and New York. Tears for the lives lost in the Middle East and in Africa and elsewhere by those who do not share our heritage but for whom we must feel compassion if we are to retain our humanity.

We have been blessed not with discomfort but with horror, and with humiliation. Horror at the atrocities that have been committed in our name, in the name of a country that was for so long the biggest source of hope in the world. Humiliation that it was we who allowed our former president and his administration to deceive and distract us, to lead us into war. Humiliation that we consented to the barbaric treatment of prisoners. Humiliation that we agreed it was necessary.

And now it feels like it's finally over, the long national nightmare, the "regin of error" of George W Bush. But after the celebration is over the new fight is to stay motivated. It will be hard to stay involved, to stay indignant over the frustrations caused by Obama. But they will come, and we need to stay vigilant to keep him honest. He's not a savior by any right, he's just a better man for the job. And it's our job to keep him on the right path, even when we're most tempted to give over our trust and relax our activism. In those moments, in the words of Gene Robinson, God, bless us with anger.

*Obviously I didn't get this post finished until a week later. I've got quite a few half finished that I'll try and get posted soon.

America's back!

2009-01-21T23:58:00.000-06:00

And I plan on being back soon too

Go vote!

2008-11-03T18:25:00.002-06:00

In the off chance that someone will see this who hasn't voted yet... go do it!

And just in case it isn't clear, this blog completely endorses Barack Obama :)

Nothing important

2008-10-28T12:02:00.002-05:00

I know I haven't been on here much lately, between class and work and very sporadic campaigning (also a fair amount of drinking) I haven't found the time. But this is just hilarious. Especially if you remember the show from when you were really young.

More endorsements

2008-10-14T09:11:00.004-05:00

Endorsements for Barack have been coming from some unlikely sources lately. Including the son of the famous conservative William Buckley, whose endorsement prompted his resignation from the National Review.

Less surprisingly, there are plenty of VERY smart people that would also like you to vote Obama.

Also, I know that I promised I would let everyone know what new insights I gained about political discourse to help you in your efforts to convince your own jewish grandparents to vote for Obama, but all I really learned campaigning last weekend was that I really need to brush up on my spanish.

New Yorker Endorsement

2008-10-03T13:30:00.002-05:00

If you have some time, read this endorsment of Barack Obama by the editorial staff of the New Yorker. While I don't agree 100% with what they've said, it's a compelling read and a good motivator to consider voting for Obama if you're undecided and to put more effort into getting him elected if you've already decided.

After this weekend I'll post an advice post for how to convince people to vote for Obama. I've had some experience lately talking with conservatives, undecideds, and idiots and I'll just lay out my personal advice. Tomorrow though I'll be canvasing in WI (the first time I've had time to, damn you ultimate) so there will probably be a story or two to relate.

Who do you want in charge of your economy?

2008-09-25T16:54:00.005-05:00

Fine Ty... I'll write something substantive.

IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY STUPID!

At least it sure was when Clinton was running, an we look like we're in a whole hell of a bigger mess than we were then so it's more true today than it ever was then. So what I'm gonna do is lay it out there and tell you why I believe that Obama is better for the economy than G.W. McCain is.

Now here, I'm going to break cardinal rule #1 of being a pretentious blogger. I'm going to tell you that I don't know a whole lot about economics or finance. But the thing is, almost none of us really do. There are probably only a handful of people that really understand how the global economy works, and they themselves manage to royally screw it up every once in a while, so we can't even be sure that they know what's going on. And here's the thing, most presidents don't understand all of what is going on either. McCain said it himself "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated..." And while Obama has proven smarts, he was a professor of law at the University of Chicago, not economics. Clinton, Bush #1, Bush #2, Reagan, none of them came from strong economic backgrounds. I can't off the top of my head think of any that do. Most come from military, law, or state political backgrounds.

The truth is, a country's economic policies are dictated by the people that the president surrounds themselves with. The same can be said about many domestic policies as well as military decisions, but it applies especially for economics. The major difference between the two candidates now is that the people who are advising Obama are from the Clinton era. The people who are advising McCain are the same people who have been striving towards the deregulation that brought about the current economic collapse.

In 2000, Phil Graham, the same man who called America a "nation of whiners" was instrumental in writing and passing legislation that allowed mortgage lenders to pass their loans on to others. If you're familiar with the mortgage crisis, then you'll know that it was the ability of lenders to package and then sell overvalued loans that led to the shit-storm that we're currently in. This crisis came about because of that and other deregulatory practices. Realizing this, McCain is now in the news talking about the need for more regulation. But it rings hollow when you look at the statements he has been making for years.

Barack Obama has put forth a plan along the lines of what McCain originally agreed with but has not calculated his way out of backing. In the plan that is currently forming under the stewardship of the democratic leadership the lenders will be "bailed out", but with provisions that would prevent any spending on executive compensation packages and with guarantees of equity in the companies that are bailed out. All of that is a fancy way of saying that the CEOs that ruined these institutions by taking on too much risk will not get millions of dollars in golden parachutes when they are let go, and that as taxpayers we won't just be GIVING our hard earned money to the banks, but we'll be purchasing them. This way while we will be purchasing them at a loss, the end result should be that they can be sold off resulting in a bill to the taxpayers that falls well short of the 700 billion dollar figure that is being talked about. Good thing too, since that amounts to over 2500 dollars for every citizen of the country. (including children!)

To me on this issue, it comes down to trusting which candidate is putting THEIR trust in people that have the interests of the American people at heart, and are competent about how best to help them. I don't think there's any doubt during this crisis that the deregulation first crowd is the worst possible thing for the country at this point, and that's why I believe that Obama is a better choice for our country right now.

P.S. - If you think what's happened so far is scary, check out what McCain has to say about your health care.

Pretty accurate economic comparison

2008-09-25T00:41:00.000-05:00

superpoop.com

Who will tax you higher?

2008-09-23T19:29:00.002-05:00

Don't take it from me, take it from NBC

I personally think it's the dumbest idea in the world to cut taxes in any way right now. I thought that before the bail-outs due to our giant national debt. After the bailouts, it's an even worse idea. Still, if taxes are going to be cut, I believe they should benefit the people that need the relief.

Special guest comment

2008-09-23T11:46:00.001-05:00

"Rich,

http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=6

Please post this link in your blog, this is the type of information that needs to be brought to the public's attention and refresh their short memories. This is an insight to the hypocrisy of John McCain, He's not a reformer, he's a charter member of the Washington insiders clique. He's not Mr. Everyman, he's a social climber who started dating Cindy McCain while married to his first wife. He does not personify "the American Experience" he has married into the type of wealth that insulates him from it! But mostly, this illustrates the wealthy's "above the law" attitude and their use of campaign donations and insider investment deals to shield themselves from prosecution. This type of corrosive influence peddling undermines the public's confidence in our nation's credo of "equal justice for all", and is more damaging to our democracy than any terrorist attack from outside our borders. Just my opinion, -Dad"

Over the last week I've been incredibly busy preparing for sectionals as well as starting up a political science course I'm taking so I haven't had any time for the blog. Thankfully my Dad has provided, and I'll be back to work soon!

A first taste of Palin on foreign policy

2008-09-12T12:08:00.006-05:00

Lets preface this short post (I'm working on something longer to be up soon) with a story regarding actuarial tables that try to estimate how likely it is that John McCain will yield the presidency in one way or another to Sarah Palin should they be elected:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13096

So there is about a 15% chance that McCain won't survive four years in office, and if you add in the chances that he'll be impeached, that he'll be rendered unfit for office by something like a stroke or medical condition, or that he'll resign before the 2012 election to offer Palin a chance to run as an incumbent, I estimate the chances that Palin will be the president for some period of time at about 20-24%.*

So it's worrying when her lack of foreign affairs knowledge shows through. In the speech she gave yesterday she reportedly linked Iraq and 9/11. It's worrying to hear her talk like George W. Bush. It's even more worrying when her back story starts to sound a lot like his. It turns out that Palin has only ever been on one trip outside the U.S. (excluding I'm sure Canada, but I have no evidence to back that up), and that came in 2006 when she got her passport to go and visit Alaskan national guard troops in Germany and Kuwait. In that time of course she met with no foreign leaders, nor has she ever as she admitted in her interview with Charlie Gibson. She went on to say that most vice presidential candidates in the past hadn't either at the time of their nomination, which has been proven false through at least the last 32 years. This link has some clips and summaries from her interview with Gibson. All of the points brought up in the article are disturbing (especially the hard talk about Russia, see my previous WWIII posts!), but one of the most frustrating to me was the dialogue quoted in the end about the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine was, to me, the most frightening aspect of the war with Iraq. It essentially set a precedent for waging preemptive war, and in the case of Iraq specifically, without the consent of many nations of the UN. In hindsight now that the intelligence has been shown to have been rigged, over-blown, and in cases falsified, it is highly likely that the government of the U.S. or another country will use this war as a precedent for waging similar actions. It's also been demonstrated how easy it is for an administration to start a war without even having to go so far as to stage another Gulf of Tonkin.**

You could tell when Gibson asked the question that Palin was frustrated by his attempt to see whether or not she knew what the Bush Doctrine referred to, which clearly she did not. Her canned answer about fighting terrorism was a little embarassing. Once she had it explained to her though, she seemed crystal clear about her willingness to do "whatever it takes" to stop "extremists". Well fuck me, I thought she was a maverick, but it turns out she's just another fake fucking Bush-clone cowboy. Couple her responses with her talk about Russia, and there's no way we can let this ex-sportscaster have her finger anywhere near the nuclear button.

So please, please do everything you can to make sure that Obama is elected this fall. Failing that though, pray hard for McCain's health.

*This is how I got my crude guesstimate

Of all 50 presidents:

JFK assassinated in 1st term.
Lincoln assassinated in 2nd term.
William McKinley assassinated in his 2nd term.
FDR died in his 4th term.
Richard Nixon resigned in his 2nd term.
Warren Harding died in his 1st term.
Zachary Taylor died in 1st term.
James Garfield died in 1st term.
William Henry Harrison died in 1st term.

So 9/43 presidents did not last their full term. Of those 5 died of natural causes. So that means 4/43 or 9.3% of them did not finish their terms for reasons other than those covered by the actuarial analysis covered in the article. That added to the 15%chance that McCain will not survive the next four year period yields about 24%. Of course this is a crude estimate and I think the actual chances are slightly less likely than 24%, but I just wanted to emphasize the point that there is an absolutely realistic chance that Palin will become president. This makes her lack of foreign affairs all the more poignant. I realize too that that this whole excercise is more than slightly morbid, and I apologize.

** While it's been revealed one of the attacks on a US ship was falsified, it's never been shown that the first was. To all wingnut conspiracists out there, please don't bring up 9/11 as an inside job based on this off-hand comment.

Walter Reed

2008-09-05T13:59:00.003-05:00

Just in case you were wondering what the mansion-looking building was that appeared behind John McCain during his speech was last night:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php

Seriously, and the republicans were making fun of Obama for speaking in front of columns.

Also, as usual Jon Stewart has done a much better job ripping into Palin apologists than I ever could.

Sarah freakin' Palin

2008-09-02T17:42:00.005-05:00

Much was made in the days leading up to McCain's VP pick about both the timing of the announcement and the secrecy surrounding it. There had been a lot of secrecy surrounding Obama's pick which was ruined when the secret service showed up at Joe Biden's house the day before he was announced, and it seemed McCain was determined to up the level of secrecy before his announcement. And then, the day before McCain was set to announce his pick, the same day that Obama would be giving his historic acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination, news broke that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty had canceled all appearances over the weekend. With the popular governor of an important state appearing to ready himself to accept the VP nomination, speculating pundits seemed to conclude that Pawlenty had been tapped for the nomination. As it turned out, they couldn't be more wrong. On that day, Gov. Pawlenty had been informed that he was NOT John McCain's pick for running mate, and that instead the honor would be going to the Governor of Alaska who 95% of America had never even heard of. Gov. Pawlenty then, in a huff, canceled all of his events campaigning for McCain over the weekend.

It seems that McCain wasn't satisfied with trying to steal away some of the spotlight from Obama's historic speech just with a condecending campaign commercial the very evening Obama spoke, or with announcing his VP pick the day after his speech. He was going to surprise everyone. He was going to be a Maverick. He was going to run with Sarah Palin.

The problem with writing this has been that since I started, every day new information has come forth about Gov. Palin. Whereas a week ago, no one knew who the hell she was, now the news is inundated with information about her as the public struggles to find out what could have justified her selection as McCain's VP candidate. So far what we've found out hasn't really been pretty.

First off, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to have any credentials on international affairs or national security. Sure, as the dimmer bulbs on the right have pointed out, Alaska is indeed next to Russia. And they've even tried to point out that as Governor, she was head of the Alaska national guard. And from that clip, it seems that's all they've been able to come up with so far. But it turns out that experience not only didn't amount to any foreign affairs experience, it didn't even consist of any command experience at all. In fact by law, the governor of a state only has authority of the national guard within her own state. Any international use of the national guard falls solely under the scope of the federal government. As for other experience, Palin has been Governor of the 47th most populous state in the union for only the last two years. (Puerto Rico has more than 5 times as many citizens) Before that she served as the mayor of Wasilla, AL. A town with a population of about 7,000 people.

Then you have the apparent desire of McCain to take someone who is outside the Washington bubble, someone who is untouched by the culture of corruption that McCain himself likes to pretend that he's above. (Funny fact about the Keating five scandal, John McCain was officially reprimanded for having "poor judgment" in his actions involving Charles Keating.) Well it turns out that Sarah Palin might not be a good pick on that front either. She happens to have been a supporter of the "bridge to nowhere" before she campaigned against it during her gubernatorial* run. She may have been on board due to her having been on the committee of Sen. Ted Stevens 527 PAC. If you're not aware, Ted Stevens is the senior senator from Alaska, who is currently under indictment for corruption. He also appeared in campaign commercials endorsing Gov. Palin which until recently were available on her campaign website. The other story is something that Gov. Palin happens to be currently under investigation for. During the messy divorce of her sister and an Alaska state trooper, much pressure was put on the director of the state police force to fire her ex-brother-in-law. While Palin never directly ordered the man to be fired, she did end up firing the director who refused to fire the trooper, supposedly over budget issues.

Well, at least she can be on message with John McCain for being a moderate who has a proven record of reaching across the aisle to work with people in a non-partisan fashion right? Actually it turns out that as mayor, there was an incident where she was under threat of being recalled after firing the police chief and the library director upon taking office. Apparently she didn't feel she "had the support" of the police chief, but succumbed to public pressure and let the library director keep her job. What could have possibly possessed her to have wanted to fire the library director in the first place? Well it seems that Sarah Palin isn't much of a libertarian Alaskan after all, she wanted the directors support in banning certain books from the town library.

To top everything off, Palin is a true, dyed in the wool social conservative. She supports discrimination against homosexuals, teaching intelligent design in schools, is against any and all forms of abortion, even in the case of rape or when there is concern for the health of the mother (this means in the event the women may die if pregnancy is not terminated, just so you know what people are talking about when you hear this), and she believes in abstinence only education. And it turns out the whole abstinence only thing didn't work out so well with her oldest daughter. So as far for appealing to moderates in any way, Palin does active harm to the ticket. Especially when you consider that one of McCain's campaign goals was to appeal to Hillary supporters. They certainly won't appreciate Palin's vehement pro-life stance for sure.

But that brings me to my point in this, why exactly DID John McCain pick Sarah Palin? She doesn't seem to back up any of the themes that McCain has been stressing in his campaign. On top of that, she undermines the two biggest attacks he has been using against Sen. Obama. The first is that Obama is too inexperienced to be president. Well, while Palin argued in her speech last night that she is more experienced because of her less than two years as governor of one of the least populous states, neither than not her years as mayor of Wasilla lend much credibility to her experience as a leader or with how to run a country. Hell, she doesn't even know what a vice president does. (Ok I admit, the comment was half in jest. But let's be honest, it was only HALF in jest.) And secondly John McCain asserts that the president needs to be ready to lead on day one. Well as far as I'm concerned Barack is ready to lead on day one, and I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would think for a second that Palin might be. McCain has said many times that the VP must be someone who is able to lead the country in the event something happens to the president. Which would make Biden a good choice, and Palin, well, something else.

So you could accuse the campaign of failing to vet the Alaska governor enough. And you know what, you would be right. It turns out that when her home town paper was contacted by news organizations about stories from her time as mayor, they handed over files from before the paper had gone digital. The files hadn't been touched by anybody, not the McCain campaign or anyone. The campaign didn't even go so far as to ask prominent members of the Alaskan government about her. It turns out that McCain had only met Palin on one occasion before the Thursday before his announcement. On that day he met with Gov. Palin for only the second time and offered her the chance to be the vice president of the united states.

So what were the reasons that McCain went with Palin? There were other candidates considered that were truly more qualified for the job, better suited and less risky. There were even some that were women to woo Hillary voters. Well as far as I see it the reasons are three-fold.

1 - He needed to appeal to the base of the party.
The right wing has never been a huge fan of Sen. McCain. It's led to his Maverick image, but it's also led to him courting John Kerry for the VP spot in 2004. Die hard conservatives were frustrated with his victory in the primaries, and some swore never to vote for him. Some of these same conservatives are undoubtedly sporting McCain bumper stickers already, but he did need to shore up some support. In this regard, Palin is actually a good pick. Anyone who saw her speech last night can't deny that the crowd was behind her. True, it was behind her more when she was attacking Obama than it was at any other point, but it was behind her nevertheless. And as I've discussed she holds very conservative values. (socially at least) So as far a point one goes, I'll give him credit. Not because she's a good choice to actually govern as VP mind you, but because she fulfills this particular political function.

2 - He needs to shake up the race a little bit.
The polls took a bit of a dip for Obama lately but post-convention have opened back up with Obama leading anywhere from 5-8 points nationally. In more specific states he leads important states and it appears that if the election were held today he would win. What's more important is that Obama has rode through the first waves of negative campaigning and is poised to do some of his own. So his campaign worried that they were on the losing track if they didn't make a big move. They couldn't afford to go with a boring, predictable pick like Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney. Well, they certainly accomplished the goal of attracting attention. The media has been going nuts over the past week trying to uncover everything they can about Gov. Palin, and they've had plenty of success finding things to talk about. So I'm gonna go ahead and award McCain points on this. He certainly got people talking, even if I can't imagine he likes very much what they're saying.

3 - The simple fact that she's a woman.
As far as I'm concerned this is the most important aspect of McCain's choice. Now this is related to point one, because conservatives can feel inclusive and high and mighty about their acceptance of a woman when the ugly sexist democrats wouldn't let Hillary win. And it's related to point two because it's a (mildly) historic event, and it definitely got people talking. (Palin is NOT the first woman VP candidate, that honor belongs to Geraldine Ferraro, who since losing on the Dukakis ticket has gone bat-shit insane.) But the main reason is that they wanted to appeal to disenfranchised Hillary voters.

When Hillary Clinton gave her speech at the DNC, I thought one of her best points was summed up when she asked her supporters: "Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? ..." She essentially challenged her supporters to remember what it was that brought them to her in the first place. Not the fact that she was a woman, but because she was a politician that shared their principles and their goals for the country. Over the course of the campaign it became too focused on the fact that she was a woman, and some people lost sight of why she would have been good for the country.

And now John McCain is trying to pull these women into voting for him by inviting the token woman to the ticket. The party of actual sexism is using a woman not for who she is, but for WHAT she is. The true essence of sexism. McCain is trying to convince women to vote for him because he believes they'll vote for a woman solely based on the fact that she's there. John McCain thinks women are idiots. It CANNOT be argued that Sarah Palin adds anything to the ticket that could not have been added by another, more qualified choice, except being a woman. In patronizing the female voters of the country in this way his campaign reveals what he truly thinks of them. I can't imagine that any of the women that fought tooth and nail to earn the right to vote, to participate in democracy, to have a voice in America, would appreciate being used in this fashion. But that's not up to me to decide.

* this is an awesome word

Great new Obama Ad

2008-08-25T18:27:00.002-05:00

I love this new Obama ad. It attacks McCain on an issue that he should NOT be leading on, and it includes the picture of McCain and Bush that should be run in EVERY commercial the rest of the election.

Somewhere in the vicinity of 4-7 houses

2008-08-25T11:22:00.004-05:00

You may have heard something lately on the subject of McCain's houses. It turns out that McCain himself isn't quite sure how many houses he even has.

His campaign later told the press that McCain has "at least 4 houses." So apparantly they're not even really sure.

The topic has been brought to great attention lately thanks in no small part to this video from bravenewfilms.org, a progressive website that has been making many popular short progressive films.

Of course, all of this is in response to the attacks from the McCain campaign and conservatives against Barack Obama. They have been leveling charges that he and his wife are elitists.

McCain has leveled the charge himself: (at about 1:30)

And it's been hammered by right wing writers.

Now, I think this whole damn thing is frustratingly silly. Conservative bloggers try to accuse Obama of being "an arugula-eating elitist". (Arugula seems to get a bad rap just because the name sounds fancy, but in reality it tastes like crap and should never be part of a salad.) Obama is supposedly an elitist because of his Harvard education and because of his "Mansion" that he purchased near Chicago. To put the point to rest, of COURSE John McCain is more of an elitist than Obama. The man divorced his first wife in order to marry into money, came from a family of career navy admirals that paved the way for his entrance into Annapolis, owns somewhere in the vicinity of 4-7 houses, and flies around Arizona on his wife's private jet. Meanwhile But it doesn't MATTER who is more wealthy, or who came from the wealthier or more connected family. It doesn't matter how many houses they have or what their taste in disgusting weeds is. It doesn't even matter if they're a gold-digging adulterer.

What matters is how they will be for the country as president. (This is gonna be a theme so consistent in this blog over the next few months you'll grow to hate me for it.) The ONLY reason this issue is acceptable is as a proxy for evaluating traits about the candidates, and as such I have this to say. I'd much rather have a president that grew up in very modest circumstances, that continues to live on more modest circumstances, than one who doesn't. They're more likely to understand what the average American faces. But when it comes to the educational circumstances a candidate has been through, I want the absolute best and brightest, the average isn't good enough. I am not smart or hard-working enough to be president. The man who taught law at the University of Chicago and was the president of the Harvard Law Review is smart enough. (That's Obama by the way.) The man who finished 894th out of 899 students in his graduating class at his military academy is not smart enough in my opinion.

So as far as the elitism issue goes, it's a total loser for McCain. It emphasises that Obama is more in touch with the average American, and that he is a much smarter, well educated candidate. And that's all that should be taken away from this issue, it's by no means any more than a predictor of who would be a better president. But I do hope that McCain keeps shooting himself in the foot over this.

McCain attacks on the Economy

2008-08-22T10:46:00.004-05:00

On the heels of a latest poll that has John McCain with a 5 point lead in national polling over Obama, there has been a genuine sense of panic among Obama supporters. Hidden in stories about the new poll though is information that is, in my mind, the most troubling.

"McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election."

After about a month of intense negative campaigning from John McCain, voters are seeming to be swayed to believe that the man in the following clips (save the one that is about him rather than includes him) is a better choice to be a steward of our struggling economy.

So how is it that voters trust this guys on the economy? Well it's because most of them haven't seen those clips. What they have seen is attack ads threatening that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes. (Which is an ABSOLUTE lie I will get into soon.) Barack should be crushing John McCain on the issue of the economy, but he won't unless he goes on the offense. I love that Obama has built a hopeful campaign, and I love being part of the hope that we can get at least a little above the partisan vitriol to have honest debate about policy. But I would never allow that to cost us such an important election. I hope Obama wakes up soon and comes to the same realization.

T - minus ??? until Obama's VP is announced

2008-08-20T19:21:00.002-05:00

Well, I was pretty sure that I would have something to say about who Obama picked for VP by now, but he still hasn't announced who it is so I'll have to wait. This is despite the rumors I heard that he would announce to his supporters via text message on Tuesday. And then the rumors that he would announce that way today. And now rumors that he'll announce via text tomorrow. So I'm going to stop holding my breath, at least until Saturday when he's announced that he will be speaking WITH his VP candidate, so that should be a little more definite than rumors.

Still, the pick has been pretty much set by now. First off, the short list is down to about three candidates, and two of those have been all but eliminated. First off, senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Despite being a trendy pick for most of July, and coming from a state that is surprisingly this year an important battleground state, there has been a very dull reaction whenever the Bayh balloon has been floated. Progressives and anti-war groups dislike him for his participation in the Iraq War group that recommended that the senate approve the Iraq War resolution. (Which of course technically wasn't a war authorization, but I don't want to drift off track.) Then there's former governor of Virginia Tim Kaine. Again, someone who would give Obama a boost in a state that typically isn't in play for the democratic candidate, and another crafty pick. However, speculation is that since the VP pick will be speaking Wednesday night, and on Tuesday the current governor of Virginia will be speaking, they won't schedule two Virginians in a row. I know that makes ABSOLUTELY no common sense, but this is politics, and is as over-thought as events get. But the real reason that I believe that neither of these two will be the VP pick is that it's been leaked that both of their surrogate teams have received word from the Obama camp that they will NOT be the pick.

So who does this leave us with? Well, surprisingly, we're lead back to Sen. Joe Biden. I have a lot to say about picking Joe Biden for VP, but I think I'll save it until he's actually the pick, and not just who I speculate will be picked.

Recognizing the Exhibitionists

2008-08-15T17:19:00.008-05:00

When I was younger I was something of a big reader, but ever since TV and the internet atrophied my attention span to near-goldfish status I haven't been going through as many. Lately though the monotony of my job has afforded me plenty of down time to get a lot more reading in. I never used to have to pause at the end of every page to investigate every shiny object stuck in the corner of the room, but I get by. If I ever sit down with a serious literary work though I'll have to order some adderall from Mexico.

Ok, so let me wrest the tangent from my mercurial focus. (SYNONYMS!) I've been reading the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and I came across a passage that I really enjoyed, and that got me thinking. In this passage the main character of the book is talking about his artistic talents and the sense that he was born to paint. He imagines the feeling of being born to do something is a leftover from a time when people lived in much smaller groups.

"That's what I think. And of course a scheme like that doesn't make sense anymore, because simply moderate giftedness has been made worthless by the printing press and radio and television and satellites and all that. A moderately gifted person who would have been a community treasure a thousand years ago has to give up, has to go into some other line of work, since modern communications put him or her into daily competition with nothing but world's champions.

"The entire planet can get along nicely now with maybe a dozen champion performers in each area of human giftedness. A moderately gifted person has to keep his or her gifts all bottled up until, in a manner of speaking, he or she gets drunk at a wedding and tap-dances on the coffee table like Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers. We have a name for him or her. We call him or her an 'exhibitionist.'"

"How do we reward such an exhibitionist? We say to him or her the next morning, 'Wow! Were you ever drunk last night!'"

And there are millions of amateur singers, writers, and athletes out there that feel that same way. It's pretty coincidental that I happened to read this at the time when the Olympics are going on. There are probably a dozen swimmers that are right now thinking "I could sure be something special if it wasn't for that damned Michael Phelps." In a way, I think that the apparent desperation for a glimmer of fame or recognition shown in stories like these is another extension of the exhibitionism Vonnegut writes about in this passage. Of course he (or his character), couldn't have anticipated how much the internet would open up an avenue for these forms of "self-expression".

Although that's not what is happening in this particular case. There's a huge difference between a person who has a talent so unrecognized and pent up that they post themselves on youtube, and a jackass just seeking his 15 seconds of fame. (thanks again to the internet, we can only expect 15 seconds of fame now) Unfortunately the media these days chooses rather to recognize the jackasses. Not that it's their fault, we're the ones that keep clicking on jackass content. But we shouldn't. We should reward people with our attention that deserve it, not people who are willing to prostitute themselves. And so just because I feel like making things a little more right in the world, and since I think we can agree that all of us exhibitionists deserved a little recognition once in a while, and a little recognition should be paid to the fact that we can all do SOMETHING well.... here is a clip of a random guy's talent from you-tube. He may or may not be drunk, we can never be sure.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

OK, I admit some selfishness here, this is one of my favorite internet clips of all time. If I wanted to stay true to my point I probably should have posted someone juggling or playing guitar. You know, something marginally more useful.

- Also, I have no understanding at all of copyright law, but just to reiterate, the above quote was from the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and definitely not something I'm capable of writing myself.

The beginning of the end of the race

2008-08-12T16:46:00.003-05:00

This video may be a bit over the top, but that doesn't make the warnings it presents untrue.

The general election is now only about 11 weeks away. (yes, I had to look that up.) That means no more procrastinating. I'm going to have to use this space to tell anyone who reads this why they should vote for Barack Obama instead of John McCain. The problem is that most people I know are already going to vote for Barack, so hopefully my "reporting" will convince you to be more active in influencing the people that YOU know to vote for Obama. There's much to come, and first I'm going to address the offshore drilling issue since it's just starting to die out of the news cycle. But for now, enjoy the horrific video, it's gonna be a contentious and vitriolic fall, people.

Also, btw, the estimate of iraqi civilians killed in the video is ABSURDLY low. Some estimates have it in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the several million injured and/or displaced from their homes.

The season

2008-08-08T22:37:00.003-05:00

It's really too late into the political season for me to not be updating this blog. I really want to help people stay informed, so now my commitment is to update this thing at least twice a week. I apologize in advance for the fact that I won't be able to provide as much research and as many references, but hopefully you all trust me enough not to make shit up. And hopefully you know better than to take someone at their word when they say something like that, and will do the research on your own :)

That said, since I have no time to write anything now (I have to be at work in 6.5 hours, on a saturday) I've decided to post up a few things I've written while drunk. For drunk ramblings, I actually kinda like them. I can see where Hemingway was coming from. (spelling has not been corrected, for authenticities sake)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been theorized that religion arises from our attempts to interpret the intentions behind acts that had no councious actor. A key step in the evolutionary processes that led to our building bi-planes was the ability to understand the intentions of another conciousness. If you put a two year old in a room with a man who is unable to reach an object, but who looks at the object incessintly, the two year old will recognize that the man wants the object, and offer the object to the man. If you show a two year old a man turning on a light switch with his nose, the child will repeat what they see and turn the light switch on with their nose. If the man turns on the light switch with his nose while his hands are full, the two year old will recognize that the mans intention is to turn on the light switch, not necesarilly with his nose, but since his hands are full he is using his nose, and they will turn on the switch with their hand. Our ancestors saw great actions occuring around them all the time, and because their brains were hard-wired through natural selection to attribute occurances to the intentions of concious actors, they felt that the sun rose and set because someone meant it to rise and set.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

sometimes it's better to just let things go. like when you have to fart but then hold on just long enough to get somewhere you can let one rip without people hearing, but when you get there it's gone. you could get it out if you squeezed hard enough, but nothings worth ruining your new underwear.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Introspection comes from sources of great inspiration, great jealousy, and great sorrow alike. They awaken yearnings, needs, and convictions that we often ignore for lack of our own ability to satisfy them. Those are not the times that define your life. You can't live your life in those moments. You can't live a life composed of those moments. It's in those moments that you define the laws/ that you live by. The conclusions reached in those moments guide the infinitude of decisions contemplated day by day. The goals, the dreams, the values, the that you live by are decided in those moments. Each new moment is an opportunity for creation, for revision, for new life. These moments, ruined by pragmatism, are nothing less ephereal than inspiration, and can be as inconsequential if not captured. Our lives are not decided in the decisions that we agonize over, but rather in the minutiae that fills our lives, that reveals our character. The momentum we create through habit and through blind chance becomes us, and can only be changed in these self-reflective moments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So enjoy these while they're up, there's a 90% chance they'll be taken down due to embarrassment within the week.

Debate

2008-07-23T13:26:00.005-05:00

Here are a few excerpts from an e-mail exchange I've been having with a pretty successful political cartoonist name Chuck Asay. While I disagree with just about every cartoon the guy puts out, I've had exchanges with him in the past, and he's not only been polite and willing to respond but also very fair about the points I make and more than willing to explain his own points of view. I've always found it fascinating to talk to somebody that views the world so differently, and I thought a few pieces of this particular exchange were interesting in how they show differences between your standard "liberal" vs. "conservative" thought process, even when we agree on the main issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From e-mail #1, me to Mr. Asay:
"Dear Mr. Asay,I find it utterly unbelievable that you would choose to feature Sen. Dodd and Sen. Frank in your latest cartoon about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bail-out when the plan has been enthusiastically endorsed by the president himself! Save for a very small handful of libertarian leaning politicians, the basic idea is agreed upon by EVERYONE. And of course, the reason for the whole crisis, which was increased risky lending, was brought about because of deregulation by REPUBLICANS in congress! Of course whenever you address any problem that arises from congress, ... the blame lies with 'Congress' as a whole entity. It's convenient of course to blame congress now that it's democratically controlled while ignoring the fact that the problem originated in a congress that had a republican majority and was endorsed and facilitated by the president. It amazes me how you can find a way to blame democrats for EVERYTHING."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail #2, Mr. Asay to me:

"Dear Rich, Thanks for your e-mail. ... I think our basic difference might be found in how we view our government. I see it as a Republic. You might see it as a Democracy. You mention in your e-mail that there is a consensus, including the President himself, that a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie is in order. It could be. I do understand some institutions are 'too big to fail'. ... I see truth applying to individuals, not groups. If I buy a home or take some other risk, I think the consequences should fall on me not you. I've attached a cartoon I like, which demonstrates this view. I've been reading the Wall Street Journal editorial pages for many years now. They have been sounding the alarm of the risk to taxpayers of Fannie and Freddie for many years now. It has gone unnoticed. As recently as two weeks ago, both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have been saying the two huge semi-government institutions are sound. Now it appears they need help. ... I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are worse than George Bush and John McCain on most issues because they seem to have different world-views. Democrats tend toward collective solutions. Republicans, though flawed, tend toward solutions based on Truth...which is not determined by our collective views, in poll-testing or a vote. That's why you see me being more critical of Democrats than I am of Republicans. ... "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail #3 - me to Mr. Asay again:

" ... I feel I gave the impression that I think the bail-out is a good thing. Quite the opposite I'm incensed that tax payers have to save these companies from the burden they've brought upon themselves. What I gather from reading your e-mail is that what we disagree about is how to prevent problems like this in the future, or how this should have been prevented. I imagine you would suggest that by letting companies go under when they fail, other companies will be discouraged from taking on too much risk. I believe that in the case of a company whose survival is this important to the American economy, the government must regulate how much risk they can assume. That is the reason that I blame republicans for this crisis, because it was the deregulation of lenders that brought this about. ... As to your point about individuals, I feel that the bail out is also necessary to protect innocent individuals. These institutions are larger than just the decision makers that got them into this mess, and many homeowners have their fortunes tied up in what happens to them. These people aren't the ones that took the risk, and they were misled about how safe their investments were. To me that's what government regulation is all about, protecting people from the greed of others. ... My last point is that while I completely agree with you criticizing the bail-out, I find that you singling out democratic congressmen is unfair because of the reasons I've gone into. While they're certainly not without some blame (in my mind mostly for being complicit), they're not the only ones to blame, and shouldn't be treated as such."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail #4 - Mr. Asay to me once again:

"Rich, Thanks for your reply. We agree on many things...however, I think "Buyer Beware" is a better rule of thumb to protect people from their folly than the idea that it's the Government's job is to protect us from the greed of others. That's asking Government to do more than it should be doing. I've attached a cartoon here which I sent out yesterday which speaks to that point. I think Government should oversee contracts but when we ask our representatives to define, "greed", that's another matter. Greed if a subjective concept. Paul Gigot has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal today which gives some background on Freddie and Fannie. If you get a chance to read it, I'd be interested in your take on his view. Thanks again. Chuck"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is so far the extent of the exchange and it may be for this issue, though I fully intend to e-mail him with disagreements in the future. Me, I think that this is the kind of exchange that people should be having with each other when it comes to politics. Too often acrimony renders us unable not just to concede any point to another opinion, but even to understand it. That's another reason that I started this blog, I want to have these kinds of conversations more often. Now let's see if I can get back into the swing of things :)

End of hiatus celebration

2008-06-06T16:43:00.003-05:00

I've been meaning to post again for so long. My hand is working fine again and there's so much I want to write about but I now find myself with so much less than an adequate amount of time to sit down and write something. I figure though that if I just post something it will encourage me to get back in the habit. So here you go, my two favorite things from the internet today. I promise though I'll get back to writing original material soon :)

Bird surfing

toothpastefordinner.com

news to come...

2008-04-12T01:02:00.002-05:00

Old people do not understand the internet...

I know this is seriously random, I do have actual news that's worth writing and I will soon. But the left hand is still slowly on the path to healing so I don't have the patience for it tonight.

Non-contact sports

2008-03-27T02:07:00.002-05:00

I was filling out a survey about ultimate frisbee injuries just recently that I'm sure many of you received through the Ultimate Chicago. While taking the survey it dawned on me just how many injuries I've sustained playing ultimate. While it's a non-contact sport, you contact the ground more than in most other non-contact sports, so I've hurt myself much worse in 8 years of ultimate than I did in almost 15 years of soccer. So far I've broken a finger that's required surgery (most recent obviously), torn a ligament in my knee that came close to requiring surgery, broken my nose, blacked out from hitting my head twice, once going to the hospital with a concussion, and suffered knee and elbow tendinitis as well as the scrapes and bruises that come with laying out on patches of dirt. The thing is, I feel this is probably the typical experience for an ultimate player. Is our sport that dangerous?

A flurry of links in lieu of writing

2008-03-26T01:52:00.004-05:00

Still at one-hand capacity so instead of my own insight and opinion I've provided others' insights and opinions as well as some bizarre/interesting shit.

Section #1 - I hate John McCain
-It seems I'm not the only one who does
-Of course his campaign may soon run into monetary trouble, but far be it from the media's responsibility to call any attention to that.

Section#2 - I hate turncoat opportunists more
-When you're losing relevance in your own party, kiss the ass of those you used to oppose!
-But don't expect your former party to put up with it.
-Wait, it turns out McCain tried to do the same damn thing! You say you've never heard about this, but you know what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said in a sermon? Curious.

Section #3 - I shouldn't take glee from this, but douche bags do get comeuppance. Also spell check corrected the spelling of douchebags for me :D
-Look, if you're going to encourage voter fraud, at least maybe don't do it on the public air waves.
-Still I agree it's a bit of a fantasy to expect justice :\

Section #4 - Oh Hillary, Hillary why...
-It's hard to look this ridiculous on purpose.
-OK, maybe not as hard as it seems

This thing is even MORE over

2008-03-21T14:01:00.002-05:00

The democratic primary has been over for a long time now, but people have yet to get that point across to the Clinton campaign. Their current goal is to catch Barack in the popular vote (not including the caucus states for reasons that make sense only to them), but being 700,000 votes behind with only a few contests to go makes even that goal almost unattainable. And now, today huge news from the democratic leadership. Governor Bill Richardson has officially endorsed Sen. Obama. Those of you who have talked with me about vice presidential speculation know that I've always thought he would be Sen. Obama's vice presidential candidate. As the most prominent Hispanic politician in the democratic party he could shore up democratic support among the Hispanic population. Also he served as energy secretary under Bill Clinton and as ambassador to the UN. I think he would have been an excellent presidential candidate, but he will be a stellar vice president too. What is immediately relevant though is that one of the most important superdelegates left undecided has committed to Sen. Obama, which will definitely work to sway more superdelegates as well as Hispanic voters in the few remaining states. Hillary, you ran a good campaign (for the most part), and I would have whole-heartedly supported you had you become the nominee. But it's time to face the facts and start to help the party instead of threatening to tear it down.

Enchondroma

2008-03-19T00:27:00.002-05:00

It turns out I had this in my middle finger, which is why it snapped like a pretzel log when I landed on it funny. So the doctors rebroke my finger, cleaned out all the tumory tissue, and put a few pins in to keep everything set. The result is that I'm only typing with one hand, not playing ultimate, and not getting into any fist fights for the next four weeks. (I'm really upset about the fist-fights) In a few weeks though the cast will come off and the pins will come out, and after a few more weeks of therapy beyond that I'll be back to normal.

So in the abscence of typing acuity I'll try to post some interesting stuff from other people and other sites, as well as post some older stuff that I wrote but didn't think was good enough to post initially. (Actually, I probably won't subject anyone to that.)

The thing that upsets me the most is that I'm failing in my duties to a true Chicago legend, a man who has inspired so many to achieve the pinnacles of greatness they hold within themselves. Because of my injury, and the injury to my fellow roommate, our spring league team will have difficulties in keeping to the high standards that Lieutenant-Major Bill Finn has held himself, and the Chicago ultimate community to. From the CUSL website - "Player's total win/loss/tie record: 112-36-1 ( 0.75% )" Legendary doesn't even begin to describe this accomplishment. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to apologize not just to Bill, but to the community as a whole for letting down their hero.

But I'll be fine in time for the tournament. PRINT OUT THE SHIRTS!

Racism vs Sexism

2008-03-14T13:11:00.001-05:00

Check out this snippet from an article in the Nation where a reporter is in Ohio talking to voters about who they're likely to vote for:

begin-
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, this man said, he'd not only vote for but work for McCain, "and I hate McCain."

"Why not Obama?"

"He's too inexperienced."

"And why else?" a woman down the bar asked.

"Because he's black."

"Thank you!" she replied.

More talk, a little heat, and the man exclaimed, "I'm not going to vote for the n****r!"

Some in the bar seemed tensed; they were "undecided." The man goaded them; that's not what they had discussed the other day. He laughed. Another man from across the bar said he knew whom he wasn't voting for: "the n****r."
-end

I don't know how reading that affected any of you but I can't decide if I feel more disgusted, angry, or just plain discouraged by that exchange. As a supporter of Obama I hate to see people so blinded by their ignorance that they can't see the good such a remarkable man can do. As an objective observer I wince at the irony* that these people are dismissing a man who, if they just gave a chance, could conquer their preconceived notions about race. On the other hand I've known enough people who consider their black friends "one of the good ones" to know that's not likely true. Which is why it's a bit odd that every time I hear of something this blatantly racist in this country I'm still surprised. I've seen it, I know it exists. But it's an affect of the generation I'm from that we've grown up freer from it than our parents, and when I see it it still feels like a shock. What's egregious in the above exchange is that these people are comfortable enough in their bigotry that they talk this way in front of someone who they know is a reporter, let alone a stranger. It's not even about the words they used, it's about how nonchalant they were about their prejudice.

The topic I want to bring from this, as the title of the post implies, isn't that racism is bad, or that Obama will have to fight this kind of ignorance, or that Ohio is a shitty place to live, true as all those are. My point is that while these remarks aren't common about Obama out in the open, they're universally decried when they are. However, the same reaction doesn't seem to surface when people express reservations about Clinton due to her being a woman. I don't think it would be socially unacceptable for someone to say "well I'm just not sure how comfortable I would be with a woman leading the country." Sure it's sort of a misogynistic thing to say, but I think most people would be at most mildly offended by it. On the other hand replace "woman" in that sentence with "black man" and in most social circles you'd be asked kindly to leave the first time, and not so kindly the second. In essence the two kinds of bigotry seem the same, and it would be logical that they are treated with the same reaction, but they're not. I feel that they should be, but everyone may not agree with me there.

I'm not quite on the "the media is unfair to hillary!" band-wagon, but there is something to be said when it's more socially acceptable to be misogynistic than racist in a campaign. After all, Chris Matthews wasn't apologizing for nothing. And in media in general, racism is unacceptable, but the same rules don't always apply to sexism. It's true that sexism is much harder to define boundaries for than racism. Still, so is the fact that misogynism is possibly more acceptable in both a serious context and in a joking context.

I'm not arguing that politics be color or gender-blind. Barack's heritage and Hillay's sex are very important to who they are. Barack grew up in the waning days of socially acceptable racism, found inspiration in key black leaders, and learned his faith in black churches. Hillary struggled against glass ceilings in politics and in the law practice. Both of them are stronger for what they fought against. I however don't mean to compare the adversity of one to the other. When evaluating them as candidates though what matters isn't who they are on the surface or even what they've done. It even matters little who they are. What matters is what they will do for the country. Who they are and what they've done are important insofar as they are predictors of what they will do for the country. Their race and their gender, they are not.

* I know I'm using the word ironic incorrectly, but the colloquial meaning overtook the literal meaning long ago. Give it up english majors.

EDIT - I wrote this post before the Ohio primary and didn't think it was very good. However since I can't type much lately I decided I'll post it just so the people who still check in once in a while have something to read :)

Broken hand continuity

2008-03-08T15:39:00.002-06:00

Diagnosis three weeks later... "Well looks like we ARE gonna have to put a pin in it so it'll heal." Thanks doc, I would have hated to get the whole process going ASAP. There's some frustratingly good stuff to write about lately, but I don't have the patience to do it with one hand. When I get the surgery done, or when something huge happens (like Hillary finally giving up), then I'll be back to posting more regularly. And with the Cubbies starting their season soon there will be a LOT more baseball talk :)

Fuck

2008-03-05T00:02:00.002-06:00

Well, fuck. Tonight turned out to decide exactly nothing. Obama was unable to put away Clinton and the struggle continues. The only thing that is a definite outcome from tonight is that the next few months will be bad for the democratic party.

I didn't believe for a second that if Hillary didn't win both Ohio and Texas that she would drop out. Even though her husband said in a speech that she needed to win both states to continue, her campaign made no hints that they were even considering dropping out in any scenario. In fact, they had been floating the idea of staying in the race in the face of an overwhelming pledged delegate deficit to try and win super delegates. But I thought that if Obama could win Texas, the rumblings inside the party leadership would grow louder for Hillary to drop out of the race for the sake of the party.

Now though the race will go past Pennsylvania in April. Obama will win Wyoming and Mississippi and the Clinton campaign will label the results as meaningless as the eleven in a row Obama won before tonight. And if Obama wins Pennsylvania, what precedent would make one think that Hillary would drop even then? What will likely happen is this race won't be decided until the temperatures are in the 80's throughout the beltway. It won't come to a contested convention because Obama will win more delegates than she will in the rest of the contests combined and she's already facing a pledged delegate deficit that it would be near impossible mathematically to make up. But Hillary will go through the spring making asinine comments like these sabotaging Obama in the general election. She'll keep running ads like the infamous "red phone ad" that play upon peoples fears to drive voters away from Obama. And in the end, when she loses, she'll have accomplished nothing more than damaging Obama's chances in the general election and wiling away valuable time that could be spent convincing her supporters that what is more important than having her in office is having a democrat in office.

It sounds like a strange argument I'm making doesn't it? I'm a huge Obama supporter and here I am talking about how voting for Hillary is damaging to the party instead of arguing why Obama is the better candidate, which is the only thing I like to believe people should vote based on. I guess you could call it a defense mechanism though to her making the same types of claims against Obama. It's come to the point in the campaign where what's best for the country now seems to take a back seat to winning the current step in the process. The fact remains after tonight that Clinton is almost assuredly not going to become the nominee. From now until the race is decided John McCain can parade around the country shoring up his conservative support while attacking the democrats. He's free to lunch with president dumbass tomorrow without having to respond to criticism that his policies follow almost verbatim the course of the last seven disastrous years.

This whole thing makes me sick.

Also, John McCain was born in Panama. That's right, Panama.

Obama and foreign policy.

2008-02-27T13:27:00.002-06:00

Broken hand or not, you just can't keep someone with strong opinions quiet, though it will keep this post pretty short. This post is somewhat by request.

A lot of criticism has been leveled at Barack about his inexperience and naivety when it comes to foreign policy. However while the senator does have less experience than either McCain or Clinton, his judgment has proven so far to be superior in my opinion. Look at what he said about the Iraq war back in 2002 before it began. He has also taken criticism for saying that he would use unilateral strikes against targets within Pakistan, especially from members of the Bush administration including the president himself. However that same administration just recently launched that exact kind of attack against a high level Al Qaeda target within Pakistan.* A third criticism often leveled against senator Obama is over remarks he made that he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, and other states that the US has deemed bad actors. First of all, the senator never said he would be willing to personally visit any heads of state without first going through the process of opening lines of communication and negotiation. Secondly, that is exactly the kind of communication we need with other countries during times of war to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to disaster and to open up the possibility of peace. During the cold war the US talked to Russia all the time. It was actual face to face talks that led to the brokering of a deal with North Korea. More communication is always a positive step.

*- link goes to a site which links to an unavailable msnbc article which links to a Washington post article which you have to register to see. Sorry that reference is such a pain in the ass but I'm sure you can find more info on it online if you'd like.

Another hiatus...

2008-02-25T17:39:00.002-06:00

I broke my finger at a tournament over the weekend so for the next two weeks probably no posts. This alone was hard enough with only one working typing hand. And please, no typing with one hand jokes.

Story Time!!!

2008-02-22T11:49:00.003-06:00

This is a true retelling of events that happened to the brother of a close friend of mine, reprinted here with his permission. In the interest of disclosure, I have edited out a small part of the story to avoid the possibility of offending anyone, and that part is marked. Also, the names of the people and locations have been changed. I'm pretty sure that wasn't necessary, but I did it anyways since I'm not sure the level of anonymity he would have preferred. The changes are in bold. The rest of the story is in it's entirety, his. I'm posting it because, well, it's hilarious. This guy is a damned good writer. Enjoy

"So as for the story-

Over the past couple of weeks, our shows exploded. Last time we played we had the bar over capacity by 8pm. That's 500+ people. Even the stairs going up to the mezzanine were packed. You seriously couldn't move. This has never happened before in the history of the bar.

I am pleased.

One of the 500+ people in attendance happens to be a local reporter from "Fake Newspaper." Within the week, we had a ½ page article on us- page 3. Mike brought it to my attention Thursday night. The exact words out of my mouth were "This is terribly great." It's publicity, but the moron calls it a live power hour in the title, gives the name of the bar and our names as well. We are instant exiled heroes, just add press and watch us grow!

By Friday morning, I receive a call while in class. The mayor of Fakeville or someone high up in his cabinet would like to speak with both us and the bar management. I have to tell my professor the story quickly so it can count as an "emergency absence" (this being the coolest emergency note ever) and run to the bar to attend this impromptu meeting. So I get there and Mike and the manager are just sitting there with some dude in a suit. This dick of a puritan shoots me the look from hell as I am unshaved and unshowered and look quite hungover from being up all night writing my 3rd six page paper of the week. He introduces himself and proceeds to tell us how what were doing is wrong and dangerous to the student body. The manager and mike don't say a damn word. They sit there and let this jerk-store bend them over a table. Finally, I step in.

I must warn you: while the following may seem like melodrama, it is in its entirety completely true and unexaggerated. I had been sitting there biting my tongue for roughly five or so minutes while this asshole rambled on. Finally I could take no more. I excuse myself and interrupt him. I proceeded to tell him that at no time did the bar, mike or I EVER advertise or condone this so-called "power hour." In fact, we never even advertised our shows or mentioned it onstage. We simply played 60 songs in 60 minutes and left the decision up to the crowd. What they choose to do was there prerogative. It was all word of mouth. His retort was "The city doesn't support binge drinking in any form." My reply was neither do we, but if a patron chooses to come to a bar and get intoxicated, as long as he is not a danger to himself or others, that is his choice as a consenting adult and it is the individual bar staff's decision to refuse the patron service (which he knows in a college town takes quite a bit). At this point I order a pint, right in front of this asshole, just to piss him off. Keep in mind that it is barely past 12pm and the bar had just opened. He is visibly uncomfortable with this gesture, but the kicker comes when he tells us that the city would prefer that we not play live anymore.

I am less than pleased.

I tell him straight to his face that he has no solid grounds to keep us from playing live as long as we abide by Fakesville city ordinances which we have always done. At this point Mike and the manager are utterly worthless to our cause- *Edit* "They had no idea what kind of shit was about to go down" (Bob Dylan); they are deer in the headlights of this guy's Mack truck. The prospect of the bright beams from city hall benumbs them, thus preventing them from articulating a successful argument. I tell this guy "we always have the best interest of the patrons and university in mind, but if they try and shut down live music at the bar, technically we could sue the city for discrimination because this would put the bar at a disadvantage to their competitors through no fault of their own. If [he] shuts us down, there can't be any live music within campustown. Either way all [he is] going to succeed in doing is push it underground to parties where it cannot be responsibly regulated." Also, I remind him that all his information is completely unreliable and thus his argument unfounded. Our article comes in the same periodical that advertises musical condoms and Photoshops pictures of people's faces on animal's genitalia; a less than reputable source. At this point I take a very large pull of my beer, emptying roughly ¼ of its contents. This guy is defeated and he knows it.

I am Achilles to his Hector.

He responds with some bullshit excuse for needing to look into the matter further and parts with "we'll be keeping an eye on the matter over the coming weeks." I neither stand nor shake his hand as he leaves, but instead proceed to pinch my eye in an Uncle Rocco-esque manner while maintaining an ear to ear smirk and sipping on my beer (which I didn't even want, I ordered it simply to piss him off). The invisible man in the suit walks out of the bar with his tail between his legs.

I drag his lifeless corpse around the gates of Troy for all to see.

In doing so, I instantly become a hero to the entire crew of the bar and its management and get asked to go on the employee bar crawl with a free bar tab compliments of the staff.

All this debacle succeeded in doing was creating more publicity for our already growing fan base. I said it before and I'll say it again: "Despite my best efforts, we are becoming successful." While I'm not dumb and harbor no delusions of grandure, I still look out for my best interest before that of the bar or anyone else. So, we're going to give the 60 in 60 shows a rest for a while. Maybe after generic event we'll do it again, but we're probably going to get shut down. My view is that since we're going to get shut down anyway, we may as well go down swinging and get the beer garden open, get about 600 people out there and do 100 songs in as many minutes. If they try and shut that down they are going to have a horde of drunk frat guys on their hands. Thats the spirit that beat the Japanese!!"

I did not know this, but now find it hilarious

2008-02-20T23:22:00.002-06:00

From the wikipedia entry on Manuel Noriega:

"Noriega fled during the attack and a manhunt ensued. He finally turned up in the Apostolic Nunciature, the Holy See's embassy in Panama, where he had taken refuge. U.S. troops set up a perimeter outside this building, as any direct action on the embassy itself would have violated the customs of international law (and perhaps treaties to which the U.S. was a party at the time as well). The troops guarding it used psychological warfare, attempting to force him out by playing hard rock music and The Howard Stern Show outside the residence.[15] Reportedly the song "Panama" by Van Halen was played repeatedly.

The Vatican complained to President Bush because of this and U.S. troops stopped the noise. After a demonstration a few days later by thousands of Panamanians demanding he stand trial for human rights violations, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990."

I now understand more fully the pop culture references surrounding that song, which was originally written about a car. Also, I kinda like that song.

Heroes #2

2008-02-19T16:54:00.003-06:00

I did a post titled "Heroes" way back in July that probably no one remembers. It never became a recurring segment but something came along and I needed to bring it back.

http://www.samueladams.com/promotions/HopSharing/Default.aspx

Sam Adams, an American brewing company with a historic tradition, a great line of beers, and a great American attitude. For saving this years crop of microbrewed beers, there can be no amount of thanks we can give you that would be fitting. Here's to you Sam Adams, truly the heroes of the week.

Interpreting the 2nd amendment

2008-02-19T10:06:00.003-06:00

Here

Here

Yet another tragedy that could have been avoided. This guy was obviously disturbed, obviously had mental problems, and in hindsight he should have been provided better care. The immediate question that hasn't been solved in the wake of Columbine, in the wake of Virginia Tech, or is likely to be solved in the wake of this shooting either is: Just what the fuck are we gonna do to keep this from happening again? From the gun advocate side people claim that arming more people will prevent a shooter from being able to kill as many people because armed citizens will be able to shoot back. Some people suggest closing off campuses more to prevent people with guns from getting into school buildings. Others suggest banning violent video games, or violent movies, or violence in popular culture all together.

Each suggested answer is a means towards an end designed to reduce these events.
1 - ARM MORE LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE END RESULT BEING, THEORETICALLY, THAT WHEN A GUNMAN ATTACKS, HE'LL BE STOPPED BEFORE HE CAN DO TOO MUCH DAMAGE. Sure, this would probably reduce the amount of people killed in these kinds of attacks. It also might discourage people from comitting them, knowing they're likely to get shot at themselves. However people that commit these crimes are intent on killing themselves anyways, how discouraged would they be by that? They know they're likely to face armed police in the end already. So while this might reduce the amount of people killed, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the frequency of the attacks. Also, having more people carrying around guns would increase the frequency of guns being used in crimes. A fight that normally might end up with a few loosed teeth and black eyes would have the potential to turn deadly. Add alcohol to the equation on a college campus, and it's hard to imagine that the overall result would be less dead or injured.

2 - LOCK DOWN COLLEGE CAMPUSES. We already live in a much less free society than we used to. Schools, airports, office buildings, all have had security increased drastically due to events like these. (In the case of airports, it's of course for other reasons as well) Still, events like this seem to be on the rise. It's not that more violent events are occuring, it's that the level of devastation per event is increasing drastically. I don't think that increased security is a bad idea, unlike idea number 1. Still it's an idea that I don't like. I hate living in a frightened, reactionary society, and I imagine most other people feel the same way. Still, this idea doesn't stop events from occuring as much as it does keep them from occuring in any specific place. The increase in security at schools and offices has led to the increase in shooting occuring at other public places like malls.

3 - THE INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, MOVIES, AND ON TV IS CORRELATED TO THE INCREASE IN THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE ATTROCITIES ARE OFTEN FANS OF, OR ARE OBSESSED WITH THESE PRODUCTS. Some people feel that reducing or banning such violent entertainment would reduce these occurances, and others believe that they are the direct cause. I don't disagree that the level of violence in our popular culture has gotten to an unacceptable level. What I do disagree with is that it is the cause. The cause is people who are disturbed, who need help, who need to be watched out for. This doesn't mean that violent culture does not nurture them in the wrong direction, but it's difficult if not impossible to imply causation. I personally would hate to see games like GTA become banned, I find them alot of fun. Still it's disturbing the sadistic opportunities provided in those kinds of games. I've never found it the least bit entertaining to drive around mowing down pedestrians in a game like that, but some people do, and those impulses maybe shouldn't be nurtured. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't tell you whether providing those imaginary opportunites nurtures a sadistic desire or if it provides a consequence-free environtment to vent hurtful impulses. What I do know is that banning violence in entertainment is not the sure way to prevent these occurances.

So then what do we do about this problem? First of all as I said earlier I think it's important to take the issue of mental health seriously. I know it's difficult to be worried about someone close to you, or even about someone you don't know that well, and to try to take action about it. But we need to lose the stigma surrounding it so that people are more comfortable getting help if and when they need it. That aside, there's something quicker and easier we can do to completely solve the devastating scope of these incidents.

STOP SELLING GUNS THAT ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR KILLING PEOPLE! At Virginia Tech, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to get off a ridiculous amount of shots before he was stopped. In the NIU case, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to hold 33 bullets in each magazine. In both cases, the shooters ordered part of their stockpile from the same website, which shipped them to them! There is no fucking reason that a person needs this kind of weapon. Guns are made for, as I can see it, three reasons. Hunting, self-defense, and straight up fucking murdering people. I'm not for making all guns illegal. I believe that the 2nd ammendment give you the right to own a rifle to keep King George out of your front garden. I also believe that it gives people the right to defend your homes. I also believe people have the right to hunt. That only, however, covers shotguns, hunting rifles, and small caliber, small magazine handguns. There is no lawful reason I can concieve that a person should need any other weapon. Anything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal as soon as fucking possible. Everything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal to own, operate, sell, or to manufacture for sale to any other source than military or law enforcement. Sure this doesn't solve the problem completely, but it will certainly reduce the amount of casualties.

There is another simple fix that can help reduce the number of these events, but this post is already pretty long, and I get the sense that in my rambling I may have already lost the coherence I intended, so I'll save that for now.

Am I wrong about delegate democracy?

2008-02-16T11:55:00.003-06:00

This is from an e-mail I wrote in response to THIS PETITION

"I don't know about this. While I do agree that the delegates should follow the electorate, I don't think that there's anything actually wrong with them not doing so. The primary process isn't designed as an election. The process is for the democratic party to decide on their nominee, and since the democratic party isn't actually a government entity it doesn't make sense that it should be force to follow the results of an election it hasn't agreed to bind itself too. The superdelegate situation originally emerged because the party was worried that it might need to have a say in the result of a contested primary election process (which itself only began in the early '50s), and they might need to make an "executive decision" on who the candidate should be. When you consider that in many states you don't have to be a registered democrat to even vote in the democratic primaries, it doesn't make much sense to me that the democratic party should then be forced to follow the results of that primary. I still agree that they should honor the results of the elections with ALL of the delegates, but I disagree with the premise that it would be the fair democratic thing for them to do. I also don't feel that they should feel obligated to do so."

I'm just wondering, am I wrong about this?

Who's got the arm in 2008?

2008-02-13T11:38:00.003-06:00

Every spring training is full of questions for the coming season, and this one is no different for the cubs. Who are their starting pitchers going to be? Will Zambrano pitch on opening day or will he cede the responsibility to Ted Lilly on what is typically his worst pitching day of the year? Will Felix Pie get his bat going and work out in center field? How will Fukadome adjust to US baseball?

I could keep on goin' but there's one question that I've been focusing on pretty intently and it's the one that I think is most open to debate and opinion. Who is going to be the closer in 2008?

The closer might change during the year so a better question might be "who will start the season as the closer?", but what I'm more concerned with is who people think would be the best closer for 2008. The way I see it, you have three candidates who pitch in slightly different styles, but are close to the same type of pitcher. Of the three Howry is the oldest and by necessity the craftiest. He still throws his share of strikeouts and will pitch to contact, but he's more able to work counts and get outs using his infield. Marmol is somewhat opposite in that he's a young pitcher with a young arm who can strike players out with ease but also throws a higher percentage of strikes than you might expect from a strikeout pitcher. Wood is in a position where he might be midway between the two in style. He used to be a dominant strikeout pitcher but after all the surgeries and time on the DL and hot tubs he's fallen out of, he's not the same pitcher he used to be. We saw last year that he can still be dominant on occasion, but he no longer can rely on pure throwing power to get outs.

To be honest, I'm not sure who I think would be the best. I'd love to see Wood be able to come back and be a hero in Chicago again. He has always tried to live up to what he feels is his obligation to the team and the city that gave him his chance, and has accepted less money and lesser roles throughout the time he was rehabbing. But I'm not sure that he would be best for the role. I'm waiting to see how things play out but what I expect will happen is that Marmol will start to be groomed for the role in the hopes that he will be the teams closer for a while to come.

So what do you guys think? Would you go with the experience, the youth, or the past success...the way in the the past success?

In the words of Jon Stewart, "Fuck you!"

2008-02-10T23:17:00.000-06:00

Jon Stewart on Mitt Romney dropping from the race.

Fuckin' right Jon. It's been an interesting conflict in my mind lately. I wanted so much for Romney to succeed in the republican primaries. I happen to think that he's incredibly beatable in the general election. Yet at the same time I could hardly contain my contempt for that greasy, power-hungry son of a bitch. It amazes me the extent that he was able to fool conservative voters into believing in him. That flip-floppy cunt has spent his entire political career saying anything and everything to get ahead, and his supporters had the fucking gall to criticize Hillary Clinton for the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's also true about Hillary to a much, much lesser extent. But when I decide who I want to be president I decide who I think would be best for the country. There is no other criterion. In that respect I would give all worldly possessions I own or ever will own if it would ensure that Hillary Clinton would win a race against Mike Huckabee. While she is a calculating politician and he seems more unafraid to not compromise his principles, his principles are FUCKING INSANE and Hillary's "calculations" have landed on something that I often find myself in agreement with.

This doesn't mean that I want Hillary to be president. There is still something to be said about a candidate that both shares your values and had the backbone and principles to stand up for them, and for my money there hasn't been a candidate that better fits that mold since Al Gore. Until of course Obama came along. Sure Al Gore lost, but Obama also has the ability to not appear robot-like in person, so he's got that going for him.

Ok, I'm off point. I'll regroup. I fucking hate Romney. I could get into a giant protracted rant about what an asshole hypocrite he is, but with him dropping out of the race it isn't relevant any longer. I'll just say that the guy claimed he was the true conservative in this year's primaries, yet when he ran for governor of Massachusetts he claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. What I want to address is the ridiculous statement that he made.* The part where he said that he doesn't want his campaign to be part of a surrender to terror. While he just said that so that he could further ingratiate himself with the conservative base that he figures he'll depend on for his next power-grab, I'm still sick of this particular attack on liberals. Fuck you Mitt Romney. Fuck you for exploiting people and turning them against their fellow Americans to advance your political career. Fuck you for implying that you, or conservatives you claim to think like, care about the future of this country any more than I do. Fuck you for claiming that I want anything good to ever happen to any of the damnable mother-fuckers that attack our troops, that terrorize innocent Iraqis, that take the lives of innocent civilians world-wide. Fuck you for basically equating MY ambitions to theirs. Fuck you for thinking that you deserve the respect that you have never done the hard work to earn. Fuck you even for taking advantage of conservatives, who you don't value any more than their potential to gain you more power. Fuck you for making us so angry at one another.

I don't want for the democrats to have to go up against John McCain in the general election. He can get the independent vote. People who disagree with him still respect him. Despite the fact that he kissed the ring of Jerry Falwell and the Evangelicals that threw him under the bus in 2000, who he called a bunch of lunatics.(1) Despite the fact that people working on his campaign are the same that accused him in 2000 of fathering an illegitimate black child.(2) Despite the fact that he too is an unapologetic power-hungry manipulator, who in 2001 courted the democratic party about switching parties before Jim Jeffords became an independent, making his potential switch irrelevant.(3) Then there's the fact that Republicans that oppose the war overwhelmingly favored John McCain, despite the fact that of the remaining candidates, he is the one that has most been in favor of the war, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. (4) I'll lay off a bit for now cuz I get the impression I'll be blogging against this guy for many of the summer months. But the point is that despite Mitt Romney's leaving the race meaning that the democrats will almost certainly go up against the stronger McCain, I am comforted that Mitt Romney will not be rewarded for selling every trace of his soul. Fuck you Mitt Romney, you got what you deserved.

* - Quote from Romney's speech made upon his announcement: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney said. “Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. - link

source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4

Well, thanks for the wake-up call

2008-02-06T23:50:00.000-06:00

I spent a few hours Monday night at the Obama headquarters helping the THRONGS of volunteers make last minute phone calls to get out the vote on Super Tuesday. As luck had it I ended up making calls to Kansas, which turned out to be a somewhat less than friendly state to someone calling and asking them to vote for Obama. I got some contentious calls, but for the most part even people that had no interest at all were very nice.

Tuesday morning I was supposed to be up VERY early to go vote before work. (I ended up having time after work, don't worry I'm not a hypocrite, not when it comes to politics at least.) Obviously I was sleeping late and had turned my alarm off. Luckily though I got a phone call about ten minutes before the last possible minute I could have left for work and still been close to on-time. I answered the phone to a southern-sounding "Is this Rich?" I couldn't figure out why a cowboy was calling me, but he went on. "You called me about Obama didn't you?" I had actually thought about how it was strange when I was doing calls that, making them from my phone, if someone tried to call back they would get me. Now it was happening. "I just wanted to say that I would never vote for Obama. I would never vote for ANY democrat. I'm a Christian and I don't support the killing of unborn babies. I'll be voting for Mike Huckabee and I just wanted you to know that!" Well, since I guess I should still try to be a representative of the Obama campaign I decided to just apologize try to get the hell off the phone, plus I wasn't woken up enough to think of anything clever. I think my politeness a bit disarmed him as he stopped yelling as much and only was able to mutter something about hell before I hung up.

Ten minutes later I thought about calling him back in order to thank him for waking me up in time for work.

Wait, what?

2008-02-06T21:50:00.000-06:00

This post covers the democratic side of the race, if I can get through it without feeling too nauseous, I'll do a write-up of the republican side as well.

So the only thing that was really decided last night on super Tuesday is that nothing will be really decided for weeks and possibly months to come. So what does this mean for the candidates? Well somewhat surprisingly, the man who may have come out of super Tuesday with the most improved position may be John Edwards.

After a poorer than expected showing in South Carolina senator Edwards dropped out of the democratic primaries. With Obama gaining momentum and Clinton holding steady, his chances of winning the nomination outright had been whittled down to nothing. However, by not endorsing anyone in the race, he kept himself relevant to the discussion, since he still commands a lot of loyalty from a large segment of liberal democrats. It may be true that Obama picked up more voters when Edwards dropped out than Clinton did, but I can tell you from speaking to people on the phone during phone-banking for the Obama campaign that there are many democrats that were very upset at Edward's defeat. I believe there are a lot of voters out there who would not vote for either candidate in the primaries without a direct endorsement from senator Edwards. That is why it was a bit surprising that he decided not to endorse either candidate before super Tuesday, which it looked could decide the race or at least clearly indicate the direction of the momentum in the race.

Now that the race is clearly still wide open (I'll address who I think has the best chance in the next post), John Edwards's decision looks brilliant. First of all, by not endorsing either candidate he leaves himself open to a cabinet position in either administration. Where it gets really interesting though is if the race continues to be as tight as it currently is, and the possibility of a brokered convention arises.

First, a quick explanation of how the primary works and what a brokered convention means. You're probably aware if you've been watching election coverage that what's more important than winning states is how many delegates each candidate wins. The way the system works is that at the democratic convention a group of about 4000 people act as delegates who each cast their vote for the democratic party's nominee for president. In most primaries this is a formality since the clear winner emerges long before the convention. However, if the race is still tight going into the convention, then a brokered convention could occur, which is basically a huge horse-trading shit-storm in which the campaigns try desperately to win enough delegates to ensure their party's nomination. The reason this is important is because not all of the delegates are "elected" in the public primaries in each state. About 20% of the delegates are called "super-delegates" and are allowed to vote for whoever they want, regardless of the results of primary elections. For a list of the super-delegates in the democratic party see here:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

John Edwards of course still holds some delegates that he won during the earlier primaries. Also, he could potentially deliver a large amount of the super-delegates should he decide not to endorse anyone before a brokered convention occurs. This could end up making John Edwards the king maker in the race, letting him choose the eventual nominee. Even stranger, there's a chance that the democratic party could completely change course if party insiders decide that John Edwards would make a better candidate against whoever the republican nominee ends up being. There's a chance that they could end up making HIM the eventual nominee. Confused yet? So am I.

So what's more relevant after Super Tuesday is the race between Clinton and Obama, and the momentum of the Obama campaign vs. the stomping Clinton delivered in California. (Strange how that Maria Shriver endorsement had little effect, right?) I just happen to find it interesting that what I thought was a huge mistake by John Edwards ended up being one of the best decisions he's made so far in the campaign. Still, the possibility of a brokered convention is VERY small, and has never happened since the advent of the current primary system in the '50s, despite coming close a few times, notably in '88.

So while I enjoyed speculating about the possibilities ahead, I hope you may have learned something about our convoluted political system! Tomorrow I'll convince you though that Obama will be able to win the nomination outright over the next few months!

the urgency of now

2008-02-04T21:58:00.000-06:00

From guest blogger Kevin Roos, since I've been too busy to tell you how to vote in the primary, I'm going to let him do it for you. This is from the e-mail he sent to me:

subj: the urgency of now

My friends (to steal a line from John McCain),

I'm sending this to anyone who I think might care. This fall, we'll all be trying to convince our friends, relatives, and acquaintances that another 4 years of a Republican in the White House would be disastrous for our country, and for the world. What has yet to be determined is whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the motivating force behind this effort.

Some of you may be supporting Obama, some of you may not be or may still be undecided, but I wanted to make sure all of you realize what is at stake in this election. There is a contrast to be made, in my opinion a very clear contrast, one which should not be brushed aside.

This fall, will we be supporting the candidate who had the judgment and principles to give the following speech prior to the invasion of Iraq (a MUST read if you haven't read it before)?

Or, will we be supporting the candidate who not only voted to give George Bush authorization to wage that war, but was stubbornly among the last of the Democrats to admit the war was a mistake?

This fall, will we be supporting the candidate who in 2006 (according to the National Journal's ranking's) voted more liberal than 87% of Senators on economic policy issues, and voted more liberal than 85% of Senators on foreign policy issues? (Obama)
Or, will we be supporting the candidate who in 2006 voted more liberal than 63% of Senators on economic policy issues, and voted more liberal than 62% of Senators on foreign policy issues? (Clinton)
Speaking as a progressive who was paying attention to both of their votes at the time, Obama always impressed me with his progressive votes, while Clinton not infrequently made me extremely angry.

Will we be supporting the candidate whose reputation has suffered the full extent of years of onslaught by right-wing talk radio, or will we be supporting someone fresh and new whose image can (and has been) shaped in a more positive fashion? You would be amazed how many people simply would never vote for Hillary and hate her with a passion, or how many Republicans have very positive views of Obama. And I've talked to LOTS of people over the last couple of months.

Will we be supporting a candidate whose exceptional oratory skills inspire a whole new generation of people to cast aside their cynicism for the political process, and work for the changes that are so desperately needed? Someone like JFK or Robert Kennedy, someone who exudes an aura of integrity and passion for righteous causes that is totally contagious? I have met so many people who have never been involved in politics before, and are working on Obama's campaign. People who are my age and have never voted before, but now they are working full time or part time for a political campaign. It really is a beautiful thing, and a candidate who can inspire that is extremely rare.

Will we be supporting a candidate who served on the board of Wal-Mart (which is not to disparage the other good things she has done especially child advocacy) and raked in the dough working for a corporate law firm on intellectual property and patent issues?
Or, will we be supporting a candidate who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, could have done almost anything he wanted to and made tons of money, but instead went to Chicago to organize a voter registration drive, and work as a lawyer representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases?

So, to me, the choice is clear. If you're on board as far as supporting Obama at this point, here's the real reason I'm writing this. The next week will be the absolutely most critical time for Obama's campaign. This next week will mean as much as all the time prior, and all the time afterwards, because next Tuesday half of the entire country's delegates will be voted on. That means that if you've ever thought of contributing to something bigger than yourself, ever wanted to be part of what I really think could be a realignment of our nation's politics towards a progressive agenda, NOW is the time.

No matter where you live, you can find a way to help. Go to www.barackobama.com, click on your state, and click "find events". Even if it's just a couple hours this weekend, it's extremely important. I'll be at the Chicago headquarters a large portion of the weekend, and I'll be doing something on Tuesday either in Evanston or in Chicago, and I'd like as many people to join me as possible. But for those of you not in the Chicago area, there will be something in your area, I promise. And at the very least, make sure you discuss this with all friends of yours who will be voting.

Please, forward this to anyone you think might benefit from reading this. As Barack would say, "Yes. We. Can."

-Kevin

Life Update!

2008-01-18T12:19:00.000-06:00

Ok, so I know many of you are probably wondering what the hell I'm doing with my time lately since I've been unemployed for almost two months now and underemployed for about five. Well, I'm confident to say that I don't foresee being unemployed much longer. I actually just turned down a job offer on Tuesday. Why would I do that, am I crazy? Yeah, probably, but the job didn't pay enough to excuse the fact that it would be a one year commitment and I wouldn't actually get to do any science, but would basically be a glorified number checker. In fact my job security couldn't have been that great since I can't imagine it would be very hard to design a robot that could do the same job and not demand health benefits. On the plus side though I have more interviews coming up, and it seems the job availability in the city is on a bit of an upturn, so hopefully the outlook is a good one. Ok! Now you guys can stop asking me awkward questions about the subject, and I promise you once I do find a job I'll let everyone know.

Iowa

2008-01-16T16:39:00.000-06:00

I don't know how many people read the comments, so I wanted to do a fresh post rather than respond in the comments to a few things that Kevin and Ty said. Of course, I'm not sure many people read the blog overall, but I think this is an interesting debate. This post will be written as a response to what they said.

About the importance of Iowa in the primaries. I think that we're in agreement that whoever wins in Iowa gets a huge boost in media attention, even placing relatively high like Dean did in 2004 can make the media treat someone like a serious candidate. The argument you guys seem to be making is that this is overall beneficial, since it can raise a candidate who may otherwise have been written off to a higher prominence. It can level the playing field between candidates that have a lot of financial support and others that may be a better overall candidate. And I can see where you're coming from, and it's a perfectly reasonable argument, but I think that what just happened in New Hampshire might be evidence of why I don't think the Iowa hype is a good thing.

After the Obama win in Iowa, he went from being regarded in the media as an underdog to being heralded as the reincarnation of JFK. It's hard to know whether the surge he got in polling in New Hampshire was an effect of the increased media support he received or a genuine change in people's attitudes towards his candidacy. When he lost New Hampshire by a few points despite being up almost double digits in the polls I think we got our answer.

Now I completely support Obama, I would like to see him as our next president, so it's hard for me to argue that the media boost he got after Iowa was a bad thing. I think he should have been regarded as a much stronger candidate beforehand. But my point is that different electorates obviously would elect, and much prefer, different candidates, and the republican primary race makes that point starkly clear. So far three different candidates have won a state in the race. McCain won New Hampshire, Romney won Wyoming, Huckabee won Iowa. So obviously in a race that contested, there is no one candidate who deserves the kind of media bump awarded when a candidate wins Iowa.

In the recent case, the undeserved Iowa bump for Obama turned out to be as much a slam against Clinton as it was an increase in praise for Obama. The media likes a good narrative and hers was to be written as the precipitous collapse of a political powerhouse, a campaign that seemed as much an inevitability as an election. But her campaign was never an inevitability, and Obama's win in Iowa was not a momentous upset. Obama won Iowa because his support system in the state was huge, because his oratory skills are peerless, and because Iowans thought he would best help their state. New Hampshire selected Hillary for similar reasons. Or at least they should have. But with the tremendous amount of influence the media has over the way people vote, it's hard to ever be sure. Obama's bump in New Hampshire was likely the effect of a psychological effect where people tend to agree with the last one to speak in an argument or a debate. Or it could have just been people's tendency to agree with what they perceive to be the majority. My point is that any focus on any horse race aspect of a campaign leads people to vote irrationally. Rather than voting in their own self interest they vote according to who the media tells them is going to win. People like to back a winner because they like to be right. It's the reason that assholes in Arizona or Michigan right now are cheering for the Patriots. Nothing benefits them from it, and if the Patriots were 0-16 this season instead of 16-0, they wouldn't think twice about them.

I may have had more to say on the subject but I've lost my train of thought. It happens.

Monkey sex

2008-01-15T13:30:00.000-06:00

Guys, this is the reason that you can't resist cranking the volume up when watching porn, and why those herbal essences commercials made you have to sit down for a little while. Ladies, I understand modest inhibition but you can't argue with science. It helps us, so please, for our sakes, speak the fuck up.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/071218-monkey-call.html

God I love science.

Primaries, Caucuses, and the absurdity of the media/viewership relationship

2008-01-12T10:53:00.000-06:00

Let me be honest here. Obama won Iowa by 9 percentage points because of the caucus system. I'm not saying he wouldn't have won Iowa in a straight vote, the numbers show that he almost certainly would have. But he definitely wouldn't have had the same margin of victory, nor would he have had quite the ensuing surge in the media that followed that news. Let's look at the numbers in New Hampshire vs Iowa: (from CNN.com's election center coverage - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries)

Iowa:
Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
Richardson - 2%
Biden - 1%
Kucinich - 0%

New Hampshire:
Clinton - 39%
Obama - 37%
Edwards - 17%
Richardson - 5%
Kucinich - 1%

For those of you that don't know how that caucus system works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

The low numbers of second tier candidates in Iowa vs the slightly higher numbers seen in New Hampshire indicate that several voters probably decided to switch candidates after their original choice turned out not to be viable. With the unlikelihood that a Richardson or Kucinich supporter would ever consider Hillary Clinton, it's a safe bet to assume that both Obama and Edwards got a boost, which may have been what led to Clinton's third place finish.

Now what these numbers ALSO show, is that if New Hampshire had a caucus system, Obama definitely could have won New Hampshire as well! Still, I won't get into the relative merits of a caucus system right now. What I want to focus on is how much attention these early races are getting in the media. You won't find a single news broadcast for a month that doesn't devote almost half it's time to primary coverage, and the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries have been hugely hyped.

This is why the media is goofy. They hype these races not necessarily out of their importance but because of their need to improve ratings and get people to watch their broadcasts. To get people to watch their networks they need to hype the importance of these races so that people will care about them, and feel that they are important enough to pay close attention to them. Then, since people are so convinced by the media that these races are so important, their voting patterns are influenced by the results of the early races, which are otherwise nearly statistically insignificant. Now part of the problem is that the primary system is incredibly ineffective. It cripples the chances of candidates that don't have big money backing by weeding them out early based not on their ideas or experience but based on how much money they can afford to spend campaigning in the early states. This has always been a problem with the current system, but the new problem turns out to be the 24 hour news cycle.

in 1992, Bill Clinton was heralded as the comeback kid because of his 2nd place victory in New Hampshire. An afterthought in the Iowa caucuses, he managed to crawl back into the primary race due to his brilliant politiking and the fact that he hadn't yet been written off by the public or the media. Yet now, in 2008, Hillary's campaign was deemed almost dead after barely placing third in ONE STATE, and Edward's campaign is now deemed lifeless after a second and a third place finish. In under two decades the importance of the state of Iowa, which was already incredibly important in deciding the primary races, has skyrocketed.

One of the things that I told people when I was campaigning in Iowa (for a whole one day, what a champion of democracy I am), was that they had the unique opportunity of being an Iowa caucus voter, and therefore had an incredibly disproportionate ability to influence the course of the nation. The truth was, and still is, that the next president will almost certainly be a democrat, and they had the ability to choose who that democrat would be. That message certainly rang true with many Iowa voters, seeing as how the number of people participating in the Iowa democratic caucuses nearly doubled from about 120,000 in 2004 to almost 230,000 in 2008. Still, the system doesn't make a lot of sense, not just because it focuses on the horse-race personality contest, because all elections in America do now-days. But because such a huge influence on the future of our nation is placed on less than 1% of our nation's population.

The motivation seems evident to move all the primaries to the same date, or at least move them closer together. And that is the move that many states have made this year. However they have to do so with the blessing of the DNC or RNC since the respective parties are the ones that, in the end, choose the presidential nominees. Of course, to the surprise of no-one raised in a free-market economy, the motivation for states to move their primaries forward wasn't so much about democratic equity, but about money. In one case the strategy even backfired. One state you'll hear almost nothing about during the democratic primary race is Michigan. That's not because of the unimportance of the state when it comes to the general election, or because it's number of delegates is inconsequential to the outcome of the democratic primary. It's because Michigan moved it's primary date further up the calendar than the DNC was comfortable with, and as a result it's delegates are barred from voting in the democratic primary nomination. Seriously, if you're having trouble following what I'm talking about here, I encourage you to do a little research on our primary system, at least read the wikipedia articles about it, it's pretty fucked up.

Can I have a minute of your time?

2007-12-21T02:12:00.001-06:00

I'm gonna preface everything by saying that going door-knocking one time by no means makes me any sort of expert on the subject of campaigning, even though I'll be writing as if I know everything about it. It's just the way I am. For the sake of disclosure though, I wasn't even that good at it.

I'm not even sure if I was really doing what I truly believe in. When it comes to politics I believe in the same basic principles as I do regarding any other subject. I believe that people are due the facts and owed the responsibility of making their own decisions. It's one of the reasons I try to cite everything that I write on this blog in one way or another. It's an impossible task especially when I'm not setting aside as much time as I'd like to for this to begin with, but I think it's important that people have the facts and know the difference when they're hearing opinion. I don't think it's my right to tell anyone what to think about anything.

However when your out trying to hit as many houses as you can, trying to drum up support, you don't have time to give people all of the facts, and most of the time they're not really interested in what YOU think is important. You have to convince them that it's vitally important that your guy win, and you have to convince them that you believe that to your core. They seem to respond to sincerity and to empathy. You have to tell them why your guy will be better for the issues that they care about than anybody else that they're running against. And you have to do it in the span of 20 seconds before they zone out and think about the TV show they walked away from to come talk to you. So I may have said some things that day that I didn't believe myself. I may have said some things that I have always thought were ridiculous talking points and couldn't believe worked on the minds of sensible people. I may have caught myself saying the kinds of things that I always picture consultants telling candidates that the voters really want to hear more than the issues. But I didn't have an hour to spend talking with everyone, and they sure as hell didn't want to spend an hour with me. So I came away from the experience much like I knew I would. I wish people knew more, I wish they cared more. Hell Iowa is incredibly important in the primaries, you could argue that it's the biggest determining factor in nominating the democratic candidate, the person very likely to be the leader of the free world in 2009, and last time only about 120,000 people made that decision! Still so many people said they had better things to do that day. But I also felt that I helped, and I sincerely hope I helped make a difference, and feel guilty I can't do more to help. And I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Polite Conversation

2007-12-21T01:25:00.000-06:00

I had a very interesting discussion recently about religion. I won't get into the details because that's not the point I want to relate. It struck me that the only reason I felt free to talk candidly about the subject was because it was with people that I don't see on a regular basis, and am not that close with. (Not that they're not lovely people, I just don't see them that often. Hi kev :) ) Now it's not like this is a very weird thing, it's a sensitive subject to some people, and it's something that people are very respective of others differences about, so it's not exactly something people are comfortable debating. In fact, one of my favorite parts of my last trip to Ireland was when my brother, trying to engage a random guy in conversation, asked him what he thought about George Bush. When the guy answered that he didn't much care, my brother said something along the lines of 'Why don't you care? It's pretty important, he's an asshole.' At that point the bartender came over and shouted at my brother "Hey! No politics and no religion!" Now it's certainly understandable that in a country like Ireland people will be wary of debates along those lines occurring in bars, or anywhere for that matter (see "the troubles"). Still, I really liked that line, and it happens to be a rule that I live by for casual conversation and casual relationships. In fact most everybody does. The problem is that I'm never able to broach the subject with people that I even suspect I have a disagreement with, even if I feel I'm pretty close to the person.

I have a close friend that is the complete opposite. He's told me about several occasions where he's argued with people very close to him about religion. And not because it was forced into conversation but just because he generally feels that these other people could be helped by what he has to tell them. It's weird, I always feel that kind of conversation would create a divide between people that I would never want to deal with, but it doesn't seem to for him. Either way, I'm almost positive that he's got the right idea.

Irate

2007-12-11T23:38:00.001-06:00

One more important post for the night, and then I'll either lapse into another week of inactivity or finish the WWIII series tomorrow. This just had to be written now because it's topical, it's fresh, and it will contain lots of cursing.

"Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran... Such actions, along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran, and America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats."

"So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."

"It's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life"

-Collected GW quotes

Of course, recently there's been some HUGE revelations in the news.

It turns out, the US intelligence community knows that Iran doesn't have an active nuclear program and is many years away from possibly acquiring a bomb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

And what's worse, GW knew about it
http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2007/12/04/bush-dni-told-me-%E2%80%98we-have-some-new-information-he-didn%E2%80%99t-tell-me-what-the-information-was%E2%80%99/
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2007/12/5/111740/472/tytvideoclips/President-Bush-Reveals-How-He-was-Briefed-on-Iran-s-Nukes-

Even the faithful are in doubt, but they'll still dutifully spin it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315742,00.html

Strange, it seems that the rest of the world tried blowing the whistle on this long ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4178804.stm

But it's not the time for apologies, for reason, or for backing down:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

And insult to injury, it makes our country look fucking STUPID:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/05/iran.nuclear/index.html

It turns out that you can't keep the truth down for too long. Iran doesn't actually have that active nuclear weapons program that the president and his puppet master have been warning us about. Now that doesn't mean that they don't want one, and it doesn't mean that there aren't nuclear threats out there. Hell, Israel more than likely bombed a site in Syria that contained nuclear-related materials less than three months ago. But the recent revelation (to the American public at least) is that Iran does not currently have an active nuclear weapons program. There is good news to be gained from this revelation, but we'll save the cheery bit for the end.

Ever since Bush came into office he's been hyping threats. His three favorites were the axis of evil, and, fuck us all, he's managed to check two of them off of his list. Iraq: It sure doesn't look like a success story right now, but GW claims that history will vindicate him. Even if it does it will still probably recognize that he was an asshole, or at least that we all thought he was an asshole. North Korea: Amazing how little that pompadoured little napoleon complex of a dictator makes world news anymore. Unbelievably the administration seems to have brokered a deal to cool their nuclear ambitions. I believe this is the sole reason that Condolezza Rice is the only member of the administration that won't burn forever in eternal hellfire. (For the less politically intune, she's the secretary of state and mostly responsible for the deal. At least that's what I believe, it's debatable.) So that leaves us with the last item on Bush's list. The last of the axis of ill intent. Iran. And damn did they ever fear-monger that one. Iran, the nuclear-powered, jew-hating, irrational, crimson-eyed Persian threat. If you aren't familiar with the war hype, then Google "Iran". I'm pretty sure 50 of the first 100 results contain the word "threat" in the headline.

I've already "blogged" about the threat of war with Iran. Every single American knows how much this administration wanted to handle the Iran "situation" based on how they have talked about Iran. I won't get into the reasons for why they would want conflict with Iran (see "megalomania", "senility", and "GW has a tiny prick") What I will say though is that you have to admire the fucking cajones of these people. The truth is they lied us into Iraq. They knew people would die, they knew people would suffer, and while it's true that they didn't know how many that would be, it's equally true that they didn't FUCKING care. They weighed American life and Iraqi life against what they thought they could gain, and they decided it was worth it. And now, even when Iraq has turned into the shitstorm it has become, they have the fucking gall, the fucking self-deluded sense of righteousness to justify wanting war with Iran! That's not just stupid, that's not just evil, that's fucking inhuman. Once again, they knew they were lying, they knew the consequences of what they wrought, they had seen the effects of their incompetence, and they were willing to do it again. I can't think of anything more damning to say on the subject. The impression I want to leave with you though is this. These people, just like any other ruler, any other person in power, have their own ends. They will say and do whatever it takes to get to those ends, they will lie to you while staring you right in the eyes. But they are not like your boss who promised you that promotion the last three times only to give it to some other kiss-ass. They are not like your boyfriend who swears he will never cheat on you again. These people are willing to see you and four thousand of your countrymen DIE for that lie. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of countless of foreigners for that lie. And these people think you are so FUCKING STUPID that you will let them do it again.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee... I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee... that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."

You sure fucking can't get fooled again.

Well fuck me, I almost forgot about the cheery bit. Well it seems with the recent revelations that the forces of good may well have triumphed. Despite efforts to keep the NIE report under lock and key it has gotten out, and it has been revealed that the American intelligence community actually agrees with the rest of the world. The implications are that it is exceedingly unlikely that there will be any military conflict with Iran during shithead's term in office, and that there are still rational people in the US government. This doesn't mean the end of tensions with Iran. Ahmadinejad is still a very, very bad man. But hopefully now we can get back to spreading peace and democracy in what should be the American way. With hollywood movies and McDonalds.

Task force meetings and Oil News

2007-12-11T22:39:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to throw this link out there, it's in a response I wrote to one of Kevin's comments to the last WWIII post, but I wanted everyone to see it and thought it might not get attention where it was.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

This was what was discussed in Cheney's energy task force meetings, which occured several months before Sept. 11th. Conspiracy theorists, take from this what you will. I for one will never believe that the US government had ANYTHING to do with that day other than extreme incompetence. However, the truth is always complicated.

What this DOES show though is that regime change in Iraq was a definite goal of the administration, and that 9/11 was just an excuse to justify a middle east policy that they would have enacted anyways. I personally believe that it was because the neocons wanted to be in control of middle east oil in fear of the peak oil theory. You can read all kinds of tin-foil hat stuff about peak oil here:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Keep in mind though, that it is an entirely plausible scenario, and I definitely don't disbelieve it. I just happen to think that investing in alternate energy is an incredibly wiser strategy than starting a 2 trillion dollar war in the middle east. Of course, if you originally thought that you could win the war for 50 billion dollars, maybe it didn't seem like such a bad idea. Of course, in that scenario you would have to assume that you wouldn't take the loss of human life into account.

Still, it seems that a third option may have presented itself. It's equal parts good news and bad news, possibly leading to declining oil prices, the breakdown of some oil cartels, less american involvement in the middle east, and at the same time not a damned thing being done about global warming thanks to all the cheap-ass oil we just found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/americas/19braziloil.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

There seem to be vast undiscovered reserves near Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, and Japan. Add those to the reserves in the arctic that Russia is making a mad dash to claim (see Russia post), and there seems like there will be enough oil to go around for at least another 30ish years*. With the possible consequences and benefits of this news, it's hard to decide if this is a good or a bad thing.

*-estimates based not on any kind of science, but on gut feelings of author based on current rate of industrial and population growth, and the nice round-soundingness of the number 30.

2008

2007-12-11T22:07:00.000-06:00

Rumblings around the office lately suggest that we may be throwing a new years party. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it but with the things that have been discussed I'm absolutely sure that some questionable stuff will go down. Don't get me wrong, it will be a blast for the most part. The breakdown will probably be about 75% - one of the best parties of the year, and 25% - alternatingly akward, sticky, and violent.

Here's to a happy new year!

TV Generation

2007-12-05T00:22:00.000-06:00

The reason I don't blog more:
I was watching TV earlier tonight and had to go downstairs to take care of a few things, only took a few minutes. I took my iPod with me so I wouldn't get bored.

Continuity, not so much

2007-11-28T00:14:00.001-06:00

The finale to the WWIII series is coming before the Pakistan episode, but I haven't finished writing the Pakistan one and I wanted to get something up tonight, so, here you go. Besides, this post is sure to be edited later anyways.

The influence behind just about everything that happens in this world is money. And the influence behind the possible WWIII is just a proxy for money. It's, of course, oil. Oil is the reason that the first gulf war happened, and it's the reason for the second as well. So how did we go and start a war centered on oil? Let's take a closer look at the events that led up to it.

Well remember Dick "The Blind Sheik" Cheney's Energy Taskforce meetings? No? Then go and look it up, I can't link everything for you. Well in these meetings it's been supposed that he was gathering information on remaining world-wide oil reserves and how much longer they would be producing. See Mr. Cheney had recently been quite convinced of the threat of the "peak oil" theory*, and was quite concerned with what it meant for the future of America. He knew that the future of America depended on securing energy sources, and his friends at Halliburton had told him that if we turn towards alternate or renewable energy sources, we would suffer the fate of all the rest of the granola-eating hippies. Less-than-extravagant lifestyles! God forbid any American should ever have to endure the indignity, so Dick knew he had to get to work. He had to secure the future of oil production for the United States. The world community won't let a country invade and seize another country's resources without a backlash that even the US couldn't survive, but if a strawman were set up then he could safely be taken out. And if the result of this action were that the country liberated were beholden to the US, AND was an oil-rich nation, then the stars would be too damned aligned not to start that war. Of course, Dick already knew exactly who this strawman was, he had had intimate dealings with him before as Secretary of Defense under H.W. Bush. And his close friend Rumsfeld had an even closer relationship with the man (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/rumsfeld-hussein.jpg) So, as the Dick who said in 1992, "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html) turned into the Dick who will advocate the veracity of the Iraq war until his dying breath, the US was plunged into a war that in the end will benefit only those soulless enough to yearn to profit from it. And now that the eventual cost of the war will settle in at almost 2 trillion dollars, enough money to replace almost every car in the US with a hybrid car, we as a citizenry are left to wonder what else that money could have paid for. That money could maybe have made us energy independent. It may have been able to build enough solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc. plants that we would never again have to give a fucking dime to another country for energy. It may have built for us the technology that would once again make us the world leader, so that other countries would once again be dependent on us for their salvation, and that our continued success as a nation would once again be in the interest in the world as a whole. Of course, all it did pay for was a few thousand dead American men and women, and countless dead Iraqis (some estimates are over a million, with more than 3 million displaced from their homes.)

I feel sometimes like an isolationist. History judged the isolationists wrong in the late 1930's. If America hadn't stepped in to aid the rest of the world against the insanities of Hitler, then the world would certainly have been such a dark place that few of us would like to contemplate. Still today, I feel right in being an isolationist. America is drowning in it's own problems and can hardly afford to try to be liberator to the world right now. The Euro is worth almost 2 dollars. The Canadian dollar is trading damned near even with the American dollar. Markets across the world are gearing up to no longer use the American dollar as their standard. Money is the bellwether that shows true influence, and ours is drying up. It won't be long until Columbian drug lords bury stashes of Euros instead of American dollars in order to safeguard their investments. Fuck, actually they probably were the first to switch. As much as GW likes to crow about how he's spreading freedom and democracy, the pendulum is swinging towards dictatorship across the globe. Oppressive China is quickly becoming one of the strongest world powers. Russia is racing backwards towards the days of Stalin with Putin at the helm, arresting or assassinating anyone who so much as glances at him on the subway. And the US, the shining beacon of freedom, is seeing it's citizens lose civil liberties at the pace of about one a week. Don't get me wrong, it's still better than Britain, which has the highest ration of "security cameras" per capita in the world. But it's a shadow of it's former self, and a disgrace to the men and women who gave their lives to ensure that it would remain the freest nation on the planet.

The question is, "what is there for us to do about it?" Well there are a million different things that you can do, and it's up to each one of us to decide what it is that we will do. Each of us needs to think about what it is that we want our country to be, and decide how best we are able to bring that about. If you've got the drive and the means to make a big difference, then god bless, go forward. If you only have the time or the desire to make a small change, then every little bit still helps. And I don't mean towards any certain ends, but towards any ends that you would like. The important bit is to stay attentive, to stay informed, and to fucking care! Everybody has heard the saying "Of course we must fear evil men, but there is another evil that we must fear more… and that is the indifference of good men.". But the nuance to that is that you aren't supposed to be outraged at the blatantly outrageous. Once it gets to the point that EVERYBODY realizes what is happening is unjust, it is too damned late. You have to get outraged at the steps that lead up to that point. Stand up and make your voice heard, in any way you can.

This will tie in nicely to what I hope will be my next post, a quick look at some of the presidential candidates. The election coming up is an excellent chance to make your voice heard :)

Life Update

2007-11-26T23:29:00.000-06:00

It's been way too long since my last post, and alot of that has to do with the job that I'm working right now. But now it's time for an update, since as of this thursday I'll no longer be working at that job. I don't have enough space here to list all of the reasons that I hated working at that job, but the main reason that I knew I had to quit was that it was making me very, very unhappy. I've worked some crappy jobs before, but I've never felt so depressed by any other job. The stress of driving in rush hour traffic, having to park in places I'm not supposed to be and worrying about getting towed (which did happen once), the dirty looks I got from servers working at restaurants as if I was helping take away their customers, the FUCKING idiot pedestrians all over the city who don't know what the little flashing orange hand means, the people who tip two dollars on a hundred dollar order. It was all too much in itself without the fact that I was making steadily less money as the company hired more and more drivers for the "busy season". But soon that will all be behind me. It's true, I don't have another job lined up yet, but that didn't stop me last job I left, and I liked that job.

Plus, now that I won't be working 10-10 five days a week I'll have time to start writing some more! I've got a hundred things on my mind to write about. I think it's about time to start a dialog about the presidential candidates, especially from what I've been hearing from the few people I've talked to at all about it. It's time to set everybody straight about these people. I'll try to get two posts up in the next two days, and if I can manage I'll finish out the WWIII series while it's still relevant!

Another dalliance with less forethought

2007-11-13T23:08:00.000-06:00

Man, when you're working 50 hours a week and constantly worried about thirteen different things it's harder to find time to do the things you love, like rant and rave about politics and current events. So until I finish my Pakistan post (which keeps changing as new news comes in), here is some random stuff that I think you'll find interesting:

Symbiont: noun An organism in a symbiotic relationship. In cases in which a distinction is made between two interacting organisms, the symbiont is the smaller of the two and is always a beneficiary in the relationship, while the larger organism is the host and may or may not derive a benefit. (dictionary.com)
In the human body, there are many other organisms that live in a symbiotic relationship with ourselves. Some are beneficial (microbes in our digestive tract that help break down food), and some are detrimental (germs and disease causing microbes).
In your body, in everyone's body, right now you are composed of around a hundred trillion cells. Of these cells, only 1 in 10 is human cells. (Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennet) Sleep tight hypochondriacs!

Veteran's Day: There's a hundred different things I could say about veteran's day, which was yesterday. I'd like to relate to you though a story that some of you may have heard. Known in France as Armistice day, the day also marks the signing of the cease-fire between France and Germany that marked the end of the first world war. The treaty took effect on 11:00 am on Nov. 11. It's nice when things work out that way that the 11th hour would fall on the 11th at 11:00 am, and that's certainly what the drawers of the treaty were thinking. The unfortunate truth though is that the treaty was finalized at 5:00 am Paris time that morning. In the time between the finalization of the agreement and the enacting of said agreement, many soldiers were killed fighting a war that was already over.
My point in this is: Everyone who gives their life in service deserves to be honored. No one gets to choose the way they go out, but they all make the same sacrifice and take the same risks. Veterans day is supposed to be the day when we do that as a country, but each year it passes with less and less recognition than the year before. Veterans account for twice the amount of the homeless population than the rest of the populace. Clearly we are derelict in our duty to them. I ask of you, and of myself, what did you do to commemorate Veteran's day? Did you donate to your local VFW, to the USO, maybe even to a homeless shelter?

OK, I couldn't get through a post without a bit of an accusatory rant, but I'll end on a lighter note:
www.imagepoop.com/image/1377/Ribbon-Based-Economy.html?img
I don't know where this is from, but it's pretty damned apt, and pretty funny. And here I thought buying a yellow ribbon made in China would somehow help the US.

Remember, remember the fifth of November

2007-11-06T09:45:00.000-06:00

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/05/open-thread-623/

If you've seen "V for Vendetta", then you know what the movie is about but for those of you who haven't seen it I'll avoid going too much into the plot because it's an awesome movie that I don't want to ruin for you. Basically though it's about a masked superhero-like figure that wages war against a tyrannical, corrupt government. It makes sense that the movie would be a hit with anyone of a libertarian mindset, or anyone who happens to realize exactly how many rights they've lost under the current administration. The movie makes importance of the fifth of November as the date of "the gunpowder plot" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_plot) It was about as libertarian an ideal as you can get, the plan was to destroy the houses of parliament and kill all the government leaders in one fell swoop. Of course, it would also have been an insanely savage act of what we now call terrorism, and I don't mean to equate libertarianism with violence. Still, some people in the UK still celebrate the anniversary of the failed attempt, even though I can't imagine it still has the same significance.

Ok, so the point of the post isn't a history lesson, nor is it a movie review. (Seriously though, see that movie if you haven't) The 5th of November had current relevance here in America because it catapulted a republican candidate* from sideshow status into major contention (as far as the main-stream media is concerned). On Nov. 5th Ron Paul raised over 4.2 million dollars towards his presidential campaign. That's 4.2 million IN ONE DAY! Apparently "V for Vendetta" has been an insanely effective rallying cry for the libertarians here in the US. Personally though, I think that it's more indicative of the fact that Ron Paul is the only one in the Republican debates who is even talking any sense. He's the only one to advocate withdrawal from Iraq, to argue completely against the use of torture, and the only one who seems to understand what the republicans used to stand for: smaller government.

It's ironic that a republican administration has beset upon Americans the largest intrusions of government into our lives in the course of American history. It's also proven to be catastrophic to their party. The rise of Ron Paul is proof that the old republicans in this country are starting to wake up and attempt to take their party back. I don't know if they'll be able to, the party is already splintering among dozens of different fault lines. Still, I'm glad to see this happening, because these are the republicans I feel much more comfortable with. I'd much rather argue with a republican that we should increase the minimum wage or have universal health care than argue with them that it doesn't matter whether or not they've done anything wrong, the government shouldn't be allowed to investigate them without a warrant.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ron Paul is insane. He's in favor of eliminating taxes, the FBI, the EPA, you know, the government. Also I've always been suspicious of libertarians, and I have an inherent distrust of anyone who joins the local militia and stockpiles supplies in their bunker. I think that organized governments are the greatest tools we have as a species for managing what has become an unreasonable amount of individuals living on this planet. I think that a government that works for the people instead of it's own self interest is the only answer to a myriad of problems that face a country. Still even a raging liberal like me knows that there are limits.

Incidentally, there's one other thing I want to bring up quick. It's not really related to the rest of the post, but it reminded me of it. Fascism does not actually mean "like the nazis", which is the colloquial definition it seems to have attained. It actually means the marrying of corporations with government towards the ends of having a corporate state. Kind of like oil companies determining energy policy, or insurance firms lobbying for the privatization of social security, or pharmaceutical companies writing health care policy and determining prescription drug coverage. Yeah, just the sort of thing that has been happening in Washington lately, that's the stuff.

* - every time I write the word "candidate" I mis-spell it "cantidate" at first. It just seems weird to me that the etymological root of that word would be "candid". I'm such a hippy sometimes, it frustrates me.

Russia - The second cold war

2007-11-01T22:53:00.000-05:00

www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2202715,00.html - Russian democracy in action

nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2007/11/01/news0846.htm - Russia cozies with Iran

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article692157.ece - Russia arms Venezuela

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070306201334.qse2sfab&show_article=1 - And they're keeping it quiet

www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=11796 - But the people still "love" Putin!

Not a middle eastern country, but probably the most important coming conflict is with Russia. Russia has been slipping further and further from a sane democratic super power under the authoritarian direction of Vladimir Putin. (Is anyone with the first name Vladimir not evil?) At the same time it's been allying itself with countries that have been on this administration's shit list since the beginning. Iran and Argentina have been it's biggest targets. Now what is it that Russia could possibly want from those two countries that it's willing to sign arms deals with them? Maybe the same reason that the US has been kissing the Saudi royal family's asses for years.

The lines are beginning to be drawn, between groups of countries, over oil rights. Russia is "claiming" Venezuela and Iran, as well as attempting to claim the arctic oil reserves as their own. The US maintains tenuous relationships with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and has just about made Iraq into a US principality. Why else would we be building permanent bases there as well as the largest embassy complex ever constructed? The lines aren't necessarily being drawn because a war is imminent, or even that likely. We're too far away from oil running out to be worried about wars starting because of it. However, we are at the point where oil production can't keep up with the expansion of industrialism. China and India being added to the world's oil demand is straining this planet's capacity to keep our cars running.

The threat with Russia in the present though, is that they're turning back into the Russia that we were in the cold war with, and isolating them for dealing with the countries we've designated as evil will only strain relations even further. It's unlikely that the US and Russia will ever be very good allies, but it used to be that world opinion regarded Russia as the crazy ones, and the US was the good guys. After the last few years though, the world is starting to regard the US as crazy, and Russia as slightly less crazy. The terrible part about this is that if the US were still in good standing we could have some sort of influence on the state of affairs in Russia, but since we can't get any countries to follow our lead lately, what can be done? Someone needs to step in and keep Russia from becoming a de facto dictatorship again, for the sake of it's citizens and for the sake of the world. It's too bad we're STILL bogged down in Iraq.

Coming Tonight!

2007-11-01T13:54:00.000-05:00

Part III of the world war series is gonna be posted tonight. It's been a while since I've had something to procrastinate from doing but now I have zoo internship applications to write, so the desire to do anything but has struck again!

Postponed

2007-10-23T21:44:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I know, World War III, serious business. I just can't get into the mood tonight to tell everybody that they're under threat of being drafted after we go to war with Iran, Russia, and possibly China. What I am in the mood for though is some weird science and philosophy discussion. I've actually wanted to write about this for a while now, so I'm a bit excited. Forgive me if this post goes on a while.
First, let me explain the experiment:

If you want to listen to a great episode of WNYC's Radio Lab that discusses this experiment, go here: http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram.py?file=/radiolab/radiolab030405.ra
It starts at about 38:30

The experiment was on finger-wiggling. If you've heard of the experiment you've probably already thought through a lot of what I am going to say, but bear with me as I detail it for those who have not heard of it. Starting in the 1960's, several times this experiment has been repeated. Scientists decided to take a look at decision making and free will. They hooked people up to a machine that measured their brain waves and then asked them to wiggle their finger. Of course the machines that read their brain waves found a peak of activity correlating to the brain telling the finger to wiggle, and a second peak making the finger wiggle. It would make sense that the procession of events would be: You decide to wiggle your finger, then the peak occurs telling your finger to wiggle, then your finger wiggles. However, what they found was that the order really went: A peak occurs telling your finger to wiggle, then you get the sensation of deciding to wiggle your finger, then your finger wiggles. That's right, the activity in your brain that tells your finger it is going to wiggle occurs not just before your finger wiggles, it occurs before you decide to wiggle your finger! At least, it occurs before you are consciously aware that you've decided to wiggle your finger. Philosophers had a field day with this study, and it seemed everyone had their own conclusions to make of it. Of course I can't get into all of their different theories and suppositions, but I will tell you the questions that this experiment poses, though they're not questions posed only by this experiment, and then I'll tell you how I think things go.

First of all, the immediate question that comes to mind is: Does this experiment disprove feel will? If this machine can tell what you are about to do before you are even aware that you are about to do it, then isn't it logical to conclude that your actions are not the result of your consciousness, but of activities within your brain that you have no awareness of? Maybe your consciousness is but one part of the myriad that composes your brain, and clearly not the decision-maker of the bunch. You can still have free will, but it resides in a part of your brain that is different from the feeling you have about what is you, namely your conscious thought, your inner monologue. Still, if that is the case then how does that change the issue? If it's a part of your brain other than your consciousness that is calling the shots, that doesn't solve the mystery of whether or not it's actions are pre-ordained. In fact, it makes the question harder to answer, because it puts the decision making in a part of the brain in which we have just by definition close off to our conscious, the answer-seeking portion of our minds. Maybe then our consciousness exists only to explain the events occurring within ourselves. Human beings evolved to the point where we are now mostly based on our ability to reason, to link cause and effect. It only makes sense that there should evolve a part of our brain that serves to find reason behind the actions of others, and after time, the actions of ourselves. It serves us well to know why other people do what they do, and as we developed more and more self-awareness, we came to apply those same principles to ourselves. However it wasn't the same as when we applied them to other people. We weren't trying to figure out what their motivations were, we knew our own motivations already. So rather than perceiving our actions as the natural reactions to our motivations, we perceived them as decisions that we made to satisfy our motivations. Our motivations and desires were things that we chose to satiate rather than the drive behind our actions. Think about it for a second, when a dog acts do you think that it has an inner monologue that justifies each action, that believes that it has planned each action out beforehand? We can't know exactly what goes on in the minds of other species, but it seems that they simply act rather than thinking about it beforehand. This doesn't mean that they are unable to plan ahead, just that this planning ahead occurs without the need for an active conscious. In fact, the absence of that internal monologue in animals that are capable of planning ahead may be evidence that it may not be the part of our brains that actually does the planning and decision making.

So which of these do I believe? Well, I just so happen to believe in the last one. Mainly because it's the one that I came up with. It's not that I'm the only one to have come up with it, I'm probably somewhere in the low twenty millions to have thought that since the experiment was done. However it's where I arrived after thinking about it on my own. Now what do I think that this means? Well, when I was younger I happened to think a lot about free will. To me the world seemed able to be broken down to cause and effect in any situation. Leaves moved because wind blew them, people ate because they felt hungry, chemical reactions proceeded because of the immutable laws of thermodynamics. I was certain that everything could be broken down into cause and effect on simple, even microscopic levels. After all, our brains are composed of cells, composed of compounds, composed of atoms that all behave the way they do based on the actions of the other atoms surrounding them. The extrapolation of this was that something as complex as someone deciding to and going for a walk could be explained by the set of atoms that comprised them following the natural cause and effect pathways that were effected on them. It's kind of like if you had a handful of marbles and dropped them, you could, given enough computational power, calculate exactly where each marble would land. I realize the analogy is thin (and I'm not a fan of analogies to begin with), but I hope it helps clarify my point. However, when you get down to subatomic levels, things stop becoming that simple. I've already rambled on quite a bit, so I won't get into quantum mechanics. One, because it's a subject that I know embarrassingly little about, and two, because it's incredibly complex and confusing, and there are few people that know the subject well enough to talk about it without being embarrassed at how little they understand it. Still, when you get to a quantum level, nothing exists in a set state. The quantum world is a world of possibilities. When you measure the path an electron takes between two points, you find that it doesn't actually chose a path UNTIL you try and measure it. Before that it exists as any possibility. (This is very cartoony, but explains pretty simply what I'm talking about: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc) To me, this is where free-will lies. We have the ability to chose, to shape our own realities. In summation, just what the hell is it that I'm talking about?

Well, I do think that our consciousnesses evolved to make sense of the actions of other monkeys. And I do think that our sense of self, and our sense of active decision making came about as a result of our consciousnesses trying to make sense of the interplay of our own actions and motivations and becoming intensely confused. I believe that confusion manifests as our sense of self. But as I said, I do think that free will does exist. Our actions may not always be decided by our conscious selves, but our actions are guided by who we are. And who we are is a creation of our consciousness.

The interesting thing about this is: What I believe may be true for me, but it may also be true only for me. If our consciousness serves the purpose of making sense the events that precede it and compose it, then it makes sense that each person has the ability to construct their own reality, and that each persons reality is just as valid as the next. Of course, I don't believe that for a second. I'd love to hear what people think about this, and feel free to tell me that I'm full of shit. I quite expect that I am.

WWIII part II - Turkish incursions

2007-10-21T21:45:00.000-05:00

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003958267_turkey18.html - The vote from a few days ago allowing Turkey to pursue Kurdish rebels into Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21399932/ - And things instantly get even worse

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=5701106 - And also, this is happening.

Ok, so Turkey has been a pretty important US ally in recent history. Their support was pretty huge in the first Gulf War, and they were initially very supportive of what used to be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Or maybe it was "Operation Enduring Freedom". I don't remember what they called it then, I don't know what they call it now, but it doesn't make a difference. The point is Turkish support is a huge lynch pin to our strategic capabilities in the middle east. As such we have always rewarded the Turkish government generously, to the tune of several billion dollars.

The Iraq war changed everything though. The war brought our interests into conflict with Turkish interests regarding the ethnic minority in the north of Iraq, the Kurds. Kurdistan, the semi-independent in the north of Iraq, has been the most peaceful area of Iraq throughout the US occupation. The Kurds have worked with the US to fight insurgents and Al Qaeda, and Kurdistan is a pretty well functioning "country" of it's own. The only problem is that they fucking hate the Turkish. The Kurds aren't contained only to the north of Iraq, they are also a minority in parts of Turkey. The conflict between the Kurds and Turkey has been going on for a long, long time, and has a Northern Ireland feel to it, to put it in a context of something you're probably more familiar with. The largest group working against the Turkish government, the PKK, is worth reading up on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKK

We've put ourselves into a situation where we are beholden to both sides of a conflict that predates our interests in the area, and which until recently had nothing to do with us. Man, that's a familiar feeling isn't it? And of course, rather than handle the situation delicately our congress is working on a resolution which would condemn the treatment of Armenians in Turkey during the first world war as genocide. Here's two obvious points: Yes, it was genocide. Secondly, how is this relevant enough to merit doing this now?

To sum up, we're in a position now where two important allies are basically in a war which has done nothing but escalate recently. Our efforts to soothe the conflict have so far been in vain, but how much diplomatic success can you really expect from this administration? If we lose Turkey, we lose a powerful ally in the middle east whose help could be invaluable if a larger conflict does break out. If we lose the Kurds, we lose our most successful area of Iraq, leading to a further destabilization that is probably beyond any hope. Of course, you could argue that it's already at that point, but I digress. I wish I could say that if we pulled out of Iraq we would be enough removed from this conflict that we wouldn't have to worry about it. In truth, the best we can do is pull out and hope that we can resolve the situation diplomatically. This specific conflict isn't something that is going to be affected much by our actions, but the results of how we handle this still has wide-ranging implications on the stability of the middle east, and the safety of our armed forces stationed there.

Ok, this post was late, but hopefully tomorrow will see part III, which will deal with deteriorating US relations with Russia, and what it means for our presence in the middle east. As always, stay informed!

EDIT - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21417605/ - thank God, it seems that for now, this might be avoided. I sincerely hope so.

How to avoid world war III

2007-10-19T11:01:00.000-05:00

"But this — we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon…" - G.W.Bush - 10/17/07

“I think the rapid growth in Russian military spending definitely bears watching,” Rice said. “And frankly, some of the efforts - for instance, Bear flights in areas that we haven’t seen for a while - are really not helpful to security.” - Condolezza Rice - 10/16/07

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/18/europe/18turkey.php - Turkish parliament approves incursion into Iraq to deal with attacks from the PKK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=464921&in_page_id=1811
- Russia lays claim to vast oil fields in the arctic near the north pole.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=154905 - Putin visits Iran

OK, so there are several threats here that need to be evaluated, and I'm gonna break them down into three separate conflicts: U.S. vs. Iran, U.S. vs. Russia, and U.S. vs. Turkey. Then we'll be able to see what is the central issue joining each conflict. (hint: it's oil!)

U.S. vs Iran
If you're not aware of the push to war with Iran from the Bush administration, then you've been living under a rock for at least a year. Do yourself a favor and watch the news tonight, I guarantee there will be a story on it. In short, Iran claims it wants to develop nuclear energy, but the U.S. asserts it is trying to develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. claims Iran is directly funding terrorist attacks on our soldiers in Iraq, and while Iran doesn't directly deny this, the truth is more money comes into Iraq to support Sunni terrorists from Saudi Arabia, a staunch "ally" of the U.S, than comes into Iraq from Iran to support the Shiites. Iran was involved in the detainment of British sailors, while the U.S. has on several occasions rounded up Iranian "diplomats" in Iraq. Both sides of course are wrong, neither side is being at all honest or forthcoming, both sides are doing things that are both illegal and immoral, but that's just international relations for you. The danger with Iran though is that things will escalate further for a JUSTIFIED REASON. The fact is, the longer we are in Iraq, the more likely it is that eventually something drastic will happen between the two countries. Two nations can only push each other for so long before one crosses the line and provokes a full out war. It could be the U.S. deciding to strategically bomb Iran's "nuclear sites", it could be as simple as Iranian border guards with itchy trigger fingers killing U.S. troops. The danger with the U.S. being in such a tense situation with Iran while in Iraq is that a situation may arise where we SHOULD go to war with Iran. At least that is how it will be presented to us when American soldiers end up dead by Iranian hands. I don't know if I'll be able to disagree with them. And it will be a damned shame too, because the populous of Iran is surprisingly pro-American. Most young Iranians crave better relations with the west, and don't like the old, islamist leaders of their nation who keep their country from advancing economically and technologically through their constant saber rattling. Of course, the quickest way we could possibly galvanize support for the failing leadership in Iran would be to go to war with them.

Ok, break for today, tomorrow I'll post U.S. vs Turkey, then on sunday U.S. vs Russia, and finally on Monday the conclusion.

Just wait...

2007-10-18T14:17:00.000-05:00

Man, do I have a post for tomorrow. I'll lay out the most important reasons that the US should leave Iraq, and let you know who the candidates are who might actually understand that. Fun stuff!

For now, an update on my own life:
I've been working for DiningIn.com since Monday now, and while it's helping me pay the bills, the main benefit of the job is that it's motivated me quite a lot to take a big step in my life. Right now that's looking like vet school, but a career with a zoo is also on the table. I've been kind of shying away from jobs that would require a long-term commitment, and talked about possibly going back to graduate school, but working this dog-shit job has helped me focus on what I really want. I want to get back to working with animals, and I want a career I can be proud of. If you can't get up in the morning, look at yourself in the mirror and be proud of who you see, then something needs to change. All these revelations after just 3 and a half days! I should have done this years ago. Check back next week when I'll probably have changed my mind yet again :)

Bland and tasteless

2007-10-10T13:52:00.000-05:00

How to blog, lesson #1: First, recall a personal anecdote of little to no actual importance, and then extrapolate on it to make a sweeping and simplistic generalization about the state of society.

So I had it in my head that I would go and buy Trivial Pursuit recently. I had just found out that all four of my roommates had been in quiz bowl together in high school, and there was a gauntlet that definitely needed to be thrown down. Plus I was sick of losing to Bill at chess, so any new board game would be a welcome relief. Now there's not a whole lot of places in this area I could think to go to for that kinda thing, but I figured Target was a decent starting place. Of course the problem with Target is that since they carry EVERYTHING, they don't carry a very wide selection of any particular item category. Apparently "Totally 80's!" trivial pursuit is the only one that sells well anymore because it was the only one they stocked. No worries, I figured, I'll just head to my back-up, Wal-Mart. Normally I wouldn't touch a Wal-Mart with a 10 foot fucking pole, but I really wanted that game and I've never been a man to stand too strongly on principle. Problem was, Wal-Mart had the EXACT same game selection as Target. I know this probably doesn't surprise many people, but I try to avoid big box stores whenever possible so it wasn't something I was prepared for. I decided it was time for my ace-in-the-hole, I would go to Toys-R-Us.(I wish I knew how to make the "R" backwards, it doesn't look right without it.) Of course I didn't go straight there. As I was driving there I saw a K-Mart and figured it was worth a shot. Man, I haven't been in one of those in years, and it'll be years before I make that mistake again. It was like visiting a sickly old man on his death bed. Sure you feel bad for him, but at the same time you're not about to touch him. I'm pretty sure even if they had the game I wouldn't have wanted to buy it, but as they had astoundingly less of a selection than the other stores I wasn't forced to make that choice. So on to Toys-R-Us (seriously, that just doesn't look right) and, I was sure, to a decent trivial pursuit game. It seems though that it just wasn't meant to be. Sure they had the trivial pursuit "Totally 80's!" edition, they even had the kid's version and something called the booklovers edition (which was full of the most obscure literature questions i've ever seen, seriously i couldn't come close to answering a single question), but they didn't have the normal fucking version. It seems if you want to play trivial pursuit you now have to choose between a version a five-year old can play, a version that no one could possibly play without a PhD in modern American literature, or a version that NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT. Of course I must be wrong about that last bit, otherwise why would every damn store have stocked "Totally 80'!" trivial pursuit? Seriously, if you own "Totally 80's!" trivial pursuit, I hate you. One last bit before I finally get to the point. The other stores had also stocked this jeopardy game I looked at a bit. It seemed like a reasonable replacement, it even had electronic buzzers you could use and it plugged into the tv to read you the questions. Only thing was it was a bit pricey. At that point though I was frustrated enough to front the extra money for electronic jeopardy. The problem was when I looked at it again, the game was multiple choice. What the fuck is the point of multiple choice jeopardy? It might be a stupider fucking idea than "Totally 80's!" trivial pursuit. If real jeopardy was like that it would be...well I guess it would be Who Wants to be a Millionaire, but cheaper. Hell maybe it would work.

Ok, so that story went on a bit longer than I figured it would, but it brings me to my point. Big box stores suck. Specifically they operate under economic conditions that make it profitable only to stock the most highly purchased items in any one category so that they'll have room to stuff everything you could conceivably need to buy into one store. In the end you're often left with little to no choice when it comes to buying something. I guarantee that there are still some toy stores out there that I could have gone to, but thanks to having to compete with the larger stores, there are so many less than there were even fifteen years ago when I was a kid. It's the same for other goods too, when a national chain replaces all the smaller specialized stores, you're left with only what that chain chooses to provide. Putting aside a rant on how that leaves these stores with unfair amounts of power over manufacturers, you're still left with the fact that the selection just plain sucks.

Ok, maybe that's not a very original point, but I've got another unoriginal one, so bear with me. While desperately searching for a normal trivial pursuit game, I was struck too by the fact that there were no suitable replacements available to buy either. The trivia games were all simplistic and easy or about disney or pop culture. The "brain games" all involved making clay sculptures and singing. Other than the obligatory chess board, there were no games that weren't, for lack of a better word, dumb. And these games aren't here by chance, they're the games that sell the best. People love the dumb games, and anything intellectually challenging just can't compete with "Totally 80's!" trivial pursuit for shelf space. Now look at me, snobbish and superior because I want to play trivial pursuit, truly the past time of great minds. Still that's partly the point, 9 times out of 10 I prefer the dumb games too. I'm not trying to say it's a sign of the times, but I am saying that people in our country are pretty fucking dumb. We do much prefer Who Wants to be a Millionaire to Jeopardy. I'm not going for a Mike Wallace moment here, I don't think it's a condemnation of modern society that more people don't want to play more trivial pursuit, but at the same time it's a bit disappointing, and a bit depressing.

Anyways, to wrap the story up, I was able to find a new version of trivial pursuit online, and despite the steep price tag (70$ for a board game?!) I ordered it and once Vijay hits the rare lull between cramming for med school exams, the gauntlet can be properly thrown. Of course that didn't stop Bill from finding an older copy of trivial pursuit in his room and promptly beating me and robbie at it. I fucking hate that guy.

A Melodramatic Mea Culpa

2007-10-04T21:21:00.000-05:00

First the positive stuff. Overall I enjoyed the season immensely. We really had a great group of guys, and it was a ton of fun playing and hanging out with everybody. A season like this is what makes me want to come back to this sport every year. We had stretches where we played really well too. CHC was about as much as I'll ever ask from a tournament, and even though the results weren't always there I always enjoyed hanging out with the team. It was great working with Tim and Jacob as captains too. They really cared a lot about the team and were willing to do whatever they could to make us better. I wish I had their work ethic. It was very exciting playing with the younger guys too. There were kids on the team that are going to be great ultimate players very soon, and I genuinely hope that we helped make them better this year, I only regret occasions where our goals as a team didn't favor their growth as players. Hopefully they all know how much we value their contributions. And the truth is I value immensely the contribution of everybody who played this season, I hope to see all you guys out next year.
Still the season ends bitterly. For the second time in six years I won't be at regionals, and this marks three years in a row I haven't qualified. I didn't care when I was with HogButcher, but the last two years the guys on our team really deserved to go. If regionals weren't in Tulsa I'm sure we would be there again filling in for whatever team bailed out, but it wouldn't change the fact that we couldn't make it there on our own. The last two years were easier to take not because I wasn't upset about not qualifying, but because there was no special guilt that accompanied it. This year as a captain, I can't help feel like I let the team down. There was too much talent and drive on our team not to have put forth a better showing, and I wish I could have been able to turn that into a better result. Additionally, I never felt like I contributed enough on the field this year. I can't remember a season when I've been less satisfied with my individual contribution to the team. And it's not just because I sat out most of Sunday at regionals with a shoulder injury, or that I almost choked to death during the game-to-to. (That's not a metaphor, I actually collapsed violently choking on a clump of grass during a point, it'll be funny in hindsight I'm sure.) It just wasn't there this year. I could have conditioned more, I could have thrown more, I damn sure could have put more time in as a captain. Still I think the biggest problem was I didn't want it enough. Sounds cliche sure, but when crunch time came I doubted whether the disc belonged in my hands. You can't have those thoughts in your head as a player, and you definitely can't as a leader. Plenty of stuff to think about in the off season I guess. Plenty of time to take a good hard look at why I play this game and what I want to get out of it. Hopefully the guilt I feel about letting my team mates down will get my ass out the door in the winter cold to stay in shape in the off season to better prepare for next year. We shall see.

A meat eater's hypocritical defense

2007-08-30T14:35:00.000-05:00

Ok, I've finally heard enough about the Vick case to piss me off that I had to comment on it. Not the case specifically, but the issues surrounding dog fighting that it brings up.

The Vick case has been talked about so much that I'm about as sick of it as most people, but I don't think people are thinking about the underlying crime in the right way. A lot of people compare dog fighting to hunting or dog racing or even slaughtering food animals. The proper comparison would be to cock-fighting or ultimate fighting. The purpose of dog fighting is to watch violence, to take enjoyment from the two animals maiming each other. Now food animals are sometimes raised in pretty bad conditions, and I agree that we should always strive to keep animals from suffering unnecessarily, but the purpose of the process is to provide food. Animals shot hunting certainly suffer when they're shot, but no more than an animal killed in the wild by a predator would have, and the hunter (hopefully) enjoys the hunt, and hunts for food rather than for the enjoyment of making an animal suffer. We walk a fine line between what types of violence or depictions of violence are acceptable, and of course hypocrisy abounds. In this case though, I find it hard to take when people compare the savage enjoyment of dog fighting to the meat industry.

The real reason that anti-cruelty legislation needs to be harshly enforced and taken seriously isn't as much to protect the animals as it is to curb violent behavior and sadism. Torturing animals early in life is a big indicator of psychological problems and can predict violent behavior towards people in adulthood. People who engage in these kinds of activities are almost always more prone to commit violent acts towards others, so to permit them legally or socially is irresponsible. Michael Vick may not have done enough to justify the punishment that he deserved, but too many people write dog fighting off as harmless when the issue needs to be taken seriously.

1.21 jigowatts!

2007-08-30T12:45:00.000-05:00

Did you know that the writers of Back to the Future attended a symposium where the speaker constantly mispronounced the word "gigawatt", leading to the pronunciation Chris Lloyd used when he screamed my favorite movie quote ever?* Had they gotten the pronunciation right the line (spelled "jigowatt" in the script) would never have been as good.

You learn weird stuff on the internet.

I'll be in Charleston tonight for my brother's 21st birthday, and tomorrow is the bar crawl. If you're in the city you should definitely come out, it's gonna be a good time.

*http://imdb.com/title/tt0088763/trivia

2 years after Katrina

2007-08-30T12:07:00.000-05:00

It's been 2 years since Katrina leveled New Orleans, and the devastation still remains. So much of it could have been prevented though, had proper maintenance been done on the levy system designed to protect the city. Government doesn't work unless it is funded well enough and led competently. I'll avoid a big government vs. small government discussion here to bring up one point. It was almost surprising to see how many people were trapped in New Orleans, many on their roofs. Alot of people asked why they hadn't simply evacuated, and suggestions have been made by many that these people were at fault for their own situation. Well, when the government claimed that the levys would hold, how do you expect people to prepare for what happened?

It's almost unbelievable how fast the situation went from a medium (Katrina was Cat 3 when it hit) hurricane to one of the biggest natural disasters ever to hit the US.

Fox attacks Iran

2007-08-23T15:14:00.001-05:00

This is a short film from Brave New Films and Robert Greenwald that shows just how aggresive Fox News has been in pushing the Iran conflict agenda into the media. We can't afford to be as inattentive as we were as a nation in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.

Cubbies

2007-08-23T14:56:00.000-05:00

The cubs are back in first! The last two games have featured amazing late inning rallies to win back to back in San Fransisco, giving cubs sole possesion of first a game ahead of the brewers. This is gonna be a hell of a fun race to watch over the last month of the season, a rare thing for both Cubs fans and Brewers fans.

I've got a few comments about the team currently:
-Soriano could be back as soon as next week, and from the sound of things, Lou plans to put him back lead-off. My man crush on Theriot might could my judgement here, but I think that's a terrible idea. Theriot has been amazing in the lead-off spot, and why would you put that extra pressure right back on Soriano coming back from an injury?
-Damn, did big Z get a fat contract. The thing is, if he had hit the free agent market he could have made even more, so big props to the cubs for FINALLY getting that settled. Does anyone think the contract was a bad idea?
-The Cubs seem finally to have answered all the critics who said they needed to go out and get another bat for the outfield by picking up Craig Monroe from the Tigers, who was a big part of their huge season last year. This year however he's hitting around .225 and was dropped from the Tigers line-up in favor of a rookie call-up. Hopefully he'll show the same improvement Kendall has since coming to the cubs.* I don't think this will end up making alot of difference though.

Cooler recap

2007-08-23T14:43:00.000-05:00

First, obligatory recap of cooler classic:
It sucked. The weather sucked, our team sucked, I sucked. Ok, that's a little harsh, but I'm just not in the greatest mood lately and there's so much about the weekend that could have gone better. From about noon on saturday until the weekend was over it rained CONSTANTLY, forcing me, Doug, Keith, and Baker to abandon camping and crash with the rest of the team in the hotel. We threw away the lead in three of our six losses, which is becoming a distressing theme for our team, against teams that we could have beaten. If not for a joke win against a bottom bracket team, and a good showing against the Van Buren Boys, the weekend would have been a total bust. As much as I didn't want to play that game going into it (it wasn't for anything, or two team's opponents had both bailed on our last games), it turned out to be for the best, since our team finally looked like we all hoped it could. There's still plenty of work to be done but it's an encouraging starting point. I just hope I'm capable of doing it. It turns out captaining a team is a difficult thing to do. It's more than just running practice (which Tim and Jacob do more of) and showing up on time (which isn't really my forte), you have to really lead the team. Hopefully we'll figure it all out.
Bright spot from the weekend though, was of course that it was overall alot of fun. That's because the team is full of fun guys who I genuinely like hanging out with. It of course helped that I was riding with Keith, Bake, and Doug, but overall it was a good time with the whole team. (And with some of the Briefcse people we were out with satuday night)

A Draft

2007-08-17T10:56:00.001-05:00

There has been some increased talk lately about a possible draft in the news and the "blog-o-sphere". The reason is the administration (Cheney) has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran, and it's getting to the point where it's down right frightening.

So, first point. WAKE THE FUCK UP! If you don't know why I'm worried, you're not paying attention. I'm not gonna save you the trouble of finding the information yourselves, I don't have the time right now (I'll probably do it in an edit though). We can't handle Iraq as it is, and we're going to invade a country that is about three times as large with about three times the population? The truth is if we do attack Iran, we probably won't actually put boots on the ground, rather we'll just bomb the crap out of stuff we think looks suspicious. Sounds like a good idea, hell it's worked everywhere else we've ever done it right? Seriously though, don't take the threats we're making against Iran lightly. Attacking them would only be about the 3rd craziest thing the administration has ever done.

So to my main point. If we do go to war with Iran, guess what, we're going to need a draft. It will become impossible to sustain a military presence over there without one. Now I personally think that it would be the dumbest thing in the world to get into a war with Iran, but I also think that a war with Iran could have terrible consequences for the US and it's allies, and that if we do get into that war, we SHOULD have a draft. Hell, part of me thinks we should have a draft now for Iraq, that we should have pissed or got off the fucking pot long ago with this war, instead of limping along half-assed accomplishing nothing while our troops get killed. If there's a cause that is ACTUALLY worth fighting for, then we should put that burden on our entire nation, not just on the poorest among us.(of course, Iraq isn't that cause, and Iran wouldn't be either.)

First, people in this country who think "well I don't see why I should have to go fight if there's a draft, I'll go to Canada!", or "why should I have to go when there are poor people willing to go?". Your missing an important point, without which you can reach those selfish conclusions. As a citizen of this country, you were born into a contract with this nation that they will provide for you all of the things a country provides its citizens with. Protection, education, health care, and most importantly, opportunity. How many people make it big in other countries compared with America? Being an American gives you an instant advantage over 95% of the rest of the world's population, and yet the moment people strike it big they all think that it's because of their inherent gifts, that they earned it all themselves. Your advantage being born in America is that you weren't born anywhere else! Compared to the rest of the world being born in America is like winning the fucking lottery. So when your country asks something of you in return, you better damned well be willing to give it. Think that isn't fair? You didn't choose to be born into a system where you might have to go off to war? Tough. Too damned bad. No one gets to choose how they start in this world, and if you don't feel lucky for where you're at, and are willing to fight to defend other people's opportunity for the same life then you're too spoiled selfish to consider yourself an American.

Ok, I'm gonna calm down a bit because I'm actually not that harsh, I just get worked up. And the truth is, I'm not walking my ass over to a recruitment office any time soon. That's the point though, you don't have to be willing to sacrifice your life for some misguided cause to be a patriot. I sure as shit don't want to go get shot in Iraq, because it would be for nothing. But the way that you avoid having to make that sacrifice is to keep your country from making those mistakes. You may find politics the most boring thing in the world, but it's part of that contract you signed by being born (or by becoming a citizen another way). You're not sitting in a desert in Iraq right now, so the least you could do is stay informed, vote, even donate your time. It's your duty as an American.

EDIT:
Here's links to some scary ass Iran related saber rattling
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1654188,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20343131/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190994/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293285,00.html

Cooler Classic

2007-08-17T10:43:00.001-05:00

This weekend is Cooler Classic! If you don't know what it is, where have you been? So I'll be in Milwauke this weekend with Haymaker to take on teams like Machine, Sack Lunch, Madison, the Van Buren Boys, etc. If you don't know what Cooler Classic is, then you don't know who those teams are either, but they're teams I'm excited to play against. My legs feel alot better after having to be carried off the field at the summer league tournament due to cramping, and I can ALMOST make a fist with my right hand again, so I'm excited to get back to playing hard.

Our first game of the weekend is against Machine, a group of douchebags from the greater chicago area who have no respect for the game or for their opponents. Ok, so actually I happen to have friends and roommates on the team, but that doesn't change the fact that tommorow at 9am I want them all dead. Until the game is over, then we'll probably hang out and drink later that night. Regardless, it's our first game of the season against our "older brother" team and win or lose, I want to give them a HELL of a game. Can we beat them? It'll take us putting in everything we got, and probably a little help from lady luck and lady them-fucking-up, but it's gonna damned fun to try.

The rest of the weekend is against teams that we realistically have a chance to be better than come the end of the season (with the possible exception of the VB boys, haven't seen them enough yet). And I'm really excited to see how the team comes together this weekend too. Motown was dissapointing in the results, but the potential was THERE. The next step will come, hopefully soon, and the results will show themselves when we do. I love the progress the young guys have made, and it's fun to see how much better than me some of these kids are gonna be when they're my age. (I know, I'm not old, but it was a birthday today, and I feel old.)* Above all we seem to have a good group of guys, and I love hanging out with all of them. In my mind that's huge, it's gonna make people play together better, and want to go out and work at practice and outside of practice more.

Recap to come on monday, have a great weekend everybody!
Rich

Comments

2007-08-14T23:30:00.001-05:00

By request I've made it so that you don't need to sign up for anything and can comment anonomously. I of course do whatever my fans want. Both of them.

Looks like I'm not the only one leaving on the 31st!

2007-08-14T12:10:00.000-05:00

Yesterday giant douche Karl Rove announced that he would be leaving he white house on the 31st of August. The reason given was to spend more time with his family, which ALWAYS means there is something else going on. So what is the reason for him leaving? Possibly he's leaving a sinking ship, or he's leaving to help another republican campaign, or maybe his departure is a effort to keep him clear of the gonzales-related investigations. Time will hopefully tell why he chose this moment to resign, or if someone else chose this moment for him.

As happy as I would like to be about the news, is this really going to change anything? It's possible that this move is a reflection of increased pressure by democrats on the white house, but it certainly doesn't change Karl Rove's abilitly to advise the president. He was a political advisor to begin with, and didn't need to be in the white house to help Bush, he just needed a phone. Of course, this rights the obvious wrong of a solely political advisor being paid by taxpayers, but he isn't the first one to have been, nor will he be the last.

In the end, Karl Rove wasn't the guy who invaded Iraq, he wasn't the guy who ignored Katrina, he wasn't the guy who used 9/11 to erode our civil liberties, he wasn't the guy who threw people in Guantanamo and said "fuck you habeas corups". He was just the guy who enabled Bush and Cheney to do all of those things by convincing americans that gays getting married was what they should really be worrying about. There's no question that he is a contemptable human being, and that he's done this country about as much harm as any of the rest of the administration through his actions. But Bush doesn't need to be elected again, he's already got the idiot king. So this is incredibly unlikely to change one iota of the rest of the Bush presidency. It won't bring the troops home, it won't dissuade them from attacking Iran, and it won't convince the supreme court to allow "Bong hits for Jesus" banners. And it certainly won't help the economy or common sense, since Bush is once again pushing tax cuts for the rich. (Maybe that wasn't Karl Rove's idea after all?)

The one hope for this situation is that this is a reaction to threats of subpoena from democratic senate investigators. If the white house is scared, maybe the democrats really do have a chance of getting to the bottom of some of the bullshit these people have pulled and holding them acountable. Probably that's just hopeful dreaming. And there's always hope that this will end up being a sex scandal :)

So what do people think? Why is he leaving? More importantly does this even matter?

I can't say I've ever been quite THIS frightened

2007-08-10T15:09:00.000-05:00

Before I leave work for the weekend and go without intranet for a while, I just wanted to share this story with anyone who hasn't heard it yet:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/09/jon-stewart-slams-mccains-racist-hypocritical-disgraceful-fl-campaign-chair/
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2007/08/homosexual-pani.html
The stuff in the second article about "homosexual panic" is just hilarious.
For the record, this guy very recently pushed forward legislation against sex in public places. It was of course already illegal, presumably he wanted to make it MORE illegal. From Bob Allen to Newt Gingrich* to Mark Foley*, it seems every time someone makes a big stink about something of a "sexually deviant" nature, they're guilty of it themselves. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't explain exactly what it is that makes people do this, but it's usually the person screaming the loudest against something that is the biggest deviant of the bunch.

*Mark Foley - I'm sure everyone remembers his scandal where he sexually harassed young male pages, mostly over AIM. What many people didn't know is that he had previously drafted legislation to protect children from online predators.
*Newt Gingrich - During the Clinton impeachment trial, where Newt was one of the loudest voices for impeaching Clinton for getting a hummer in the oval office and putting a cigar where it probably didn't belong, Mr. Gingrich was, of course, having an affair himself.

Seriously, check out theyoungturks.com

2007-08-08T13:22:00.000-05:00

This is a picture from last thursday night at the Hyatt near McCormick Place during the YearlyKos Convention (dailykos.com). While I wasn't able to go to the convention - I don't have 500$ to spend even if most of the democratic cantidates were there speaking - I went with Lu and her boyfriend Jordan to meet up with Cenk Uygur from the young turks, who was meeting listners for drinks. If you've never heard of the show, you aren't alone, it's not on the radio here in Chicago, but it's on Air America which I've subscribed to ever since Al Franken used to do his radio show.* I would definitely reccomend checking out the show onlne. You can listen to the show streaming at theyoungturks.com, or podcast the first hour of the show for free. I listen to the whole show every day for a few reasons: I'm usually bored at work, it's a liberal political show, they talk about alot of stuff other than politics, and make it funny and fun to listen to.

Now I haven't met many celebrities before, only Scottie Pippen, Freddy Adu, and Colin Quinn (I think, I don't remember if I've met anyone else). But it wasn't a big deal for me. I'm not trying to say that to be cool or anything, it just wasn't. (And I'm definitely not trying to be cool, because I'm telling you the next part) When I met this guy though, and actually got to talk with him for a bit, it was too awesome for words. I'm sure Lu and Jordan would tell you that I had a goofy-ass smile on my face the entire time, and I was definitely making some lame-ass jokes that I would be embarassed to be reminded of. The fact that I had been drinking a bit probably contributed to that as much as being star-struck did. It was so much different meeting him because he's someone that I don't just respect, but kinda idolize. How great a job is it to tell people what you think about politics and current events all day long? Still, I feel incredibly goofy that I was so excited to meet somebody that NO ONE else I know has ever heard of. Not goofy enough to not put this photo of me with him as my facebook profile picture though :)

Notes:
-Still no cable/internet at the apartment. Comcast sent someone out to uninstall cable from a house that had no cable to begin with, so now it looks like we have to wait until next monday. I would berate comcast more, but there's an equal chance the mix-up was my fault. I don't actually think it was, but with my track record of screwing things up....well, one shouldn't be too hypocritical.
-Soriano is hurt, Kerry Wood seems to have brough bad ju-ju back with him, the cubs are 0-19 with RISP in their last two games, and they have lost 4 of their last 5. If they lose tonight, assume it's not safe to talk to me about the cubs for the duration of the weekend. For now, go get 'em Z!

*I seriously miss Al Franken's radio show. It will be so much sweeter though if he can unseat Norm Coleman for a senate seat from Minnesota. You can check up on his campaign at AlFranken.com

Incommunicado

2007-08-01T11:22:00.000-05:00

There are apparantly still houses in this city that have never been wired for cable, and we've ended up in one. Don't get me wrong, I love the new place, but it'll be a little while until we get cable and internet installed, so I won't be updating much until then. As much as I want to do a tournament recap, rave about the cubs, and bitch about politics, it'll all have to wait.

note - I'll be going to a bar thursday night to meet The Young Turk's Cenk Uygur, who's radio show I listen to all the time. He's in town for the Daily Kos convention at McCormik place. If any body is interested in coming with lemme know.

30 Rock

2007-07-27T00:16:00.000-05:00

A quick note about the blog title change. I've kinda fallen for the show 30 rock lately, and this is one of my favorite scenes from it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzCQQo1jbXo

It's possible it's only funny if you're into the show. It's also possible that it's just not that funny. Still, you should definitely give the show a chance. You can probably watch old episodes free at nbc.com

Mo-Town - first HayMaker '07 tournament

2007-07-26T23:41:00.000-05:00

Right now I'm feeling super psyched to play this weekend at mo-town throwdown in detroit. If anybody wants to follow along to see how we do:
http://upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=20&id=3954
I guarantee it won't update during the weekend, and quite possibly won't for a while afterwards either, but eventually it'll show how we did. The seedings are changed from what they started as (originally DingWop was ahead of us, which is absurd). Originally we were playing 5 games instead of just 4 with a by. Which is probably good since we're only bringing 18 guys out of 26, and yet even as I type that it sounds pretty weak. Two years ago playing with HogButcher I think we averaged 10 guys at a tournament. Sure, the team sucked, but it was alot tougher. I'm still not used to playing on big teams, I still want to be in every point. And yet, I think that's good too. I hope everybody on our team this year wants to be in every point, I hope they want it as bad as I do. And for the most part, I think everybody does. I really do think we ended up with a good group of guys, and for as much fun as I know this season is gonna be, I think that we'll do pretty damn well for ourselves too. First test is this weekend.

I'm probably gonna regret not being in town this weekend though, and having time to move in to the new place. As it stands I'm gonna be rushing around trying to get a LOT of stuff packed up and moved on monday and tuesday after work. Hey, if anybody wants to help out please gimme a call.

Moving in

2007-07-23T13:44:00.000-05:00

For anyone who hasn't heard, I'll be moving to the north side soon. The move is going to save me a good bit of money (assuming I get a job some time before I quit my current one Aug 31), so naturally, I'm looking for a way to blow it all. There's been serious talk of a trip to see the Cubs play the DiamondBacks in Arizona Aug. 25-27. If anyone's interested, lemme know.

The Cubbies!

2007-07-22T20:22:00.001-05:00

It's a weird thing to feel so happy about being 3.5 back, but from where we came, this is a great place to be. It's gonna be a dogfight the rest of the season, but we're in striking distance of the division lead, and even better off in the wild card race. I have just a few comments about some of the recent news from the cubs.

Kerry Wood - It's so nice not to need him anymore, or even be counting on him. Still, you have to hope he can get back and pitch again, even if it's not this season. Not only was he a tremendous talent, but he's a good guy too. True, he likes to party maybe a bit too much, but I'm not really in a position to criticize somebody for that. I've been very encouraged by the news from him lately, and how awesome would it be if we could get somebody to replace Eyre or Ohman without going outside the organization?

Cesar Izturis - It's good he's getting a chance to play every day now, at this stage in what has been a good career, he doesn't deserve to be sitting on the bench. And the truth is, if he had been getting regular time he probably would have been hitting better. (Case in point, JJ) Still, with Theriot and Fontenot as good as they've been, there's no way you can keep Izturis on the roster instead of another arm in the bullpen. Unfortunately, due to the injury to Daryle Ward, now Cedeno is likely to be recalled. This is probably gonna lead to more DeRosa playing in the outfield or at first base, which is fine. But I'd have preferred to see Murtono called up. None of this would have been an issue if they hadn't dealt Izturis, but after that grundle-lovin he gave Ramirez on national TV, it's probably best that he and the team parted ways.

Cliff Floyd - You're not a young guy anymore, you can't go diving all over the outfield. And when some skinny ass dude is standing in the middle of first base, don't hurt yourself trying to avoid him, just clear the way with your 250 pound frame. You're too good of a hitter to keep putting yourself on the bench for short stretches with avoidable injuries.

Derrek Lee - Please come back hot from your supension. It's been a great July and I'm not used to losing two games in a row anymore.

Ken Griffey Jr. - I'm incredibly skeptical that a deal would happen where he would come to the cubs. That said, it's about the only deal I would like to see involving another bat added to the lineup. Please, Jim Hendry, don't go after Adam Dunn. Between Sori and Ramirez, we don't need more free swinging strike-out artists.

Heroes

2007-07-18T00:55:00.000-05:00

There are so few true heroes in today's world....
Actually that's not true, and the word hero gets thrown around so much that it's lost much of it's meaning.
Nonetheless, I came across this article today:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

You should read the article before you keep reading, wouldn't want to spoil anything for you :)

I don't know how many people remember when Phil Hartman was shot and killed by his wife back in the late '90s. I happened to be a pretty big Hartman fan, and I remember how sad and shocked I was by his death. He was one of those guys where you said "Someone shot him? Who the hell would want to hurt him?" Still, for one reason or another I had never heard about the Andy Dick connection before. Now I already hated Andy Dick for a hundred other things (he's Gilbert Godfried without the talent, and with more cocaine and face-licking), but now he's creeping towards the top ten people I most hate.* So when I heard that Jon Lovitz, who is a fantastic comedian and actor, had kicked the living crap out of him I was thrilled. But after reading the above article, it's not just a sense of schadenfreude I feel, but I get a genuine sense that someone who severely needed an ass-kicking has finally received it. Hopefully this is just the start of a whole host of people kicking the crap out of Andy Dick. Maybe Tim Meadows, Will Farrell, or Dave Foley can step up to the plate next.

For repeatedly slamming Andy Dick's face into a bar, Jon Lovitz is my hero of the week.

*It's too late to try to come up with a top ten list right now, but maybe in the future. An important note though, Dennis Miller, who is definitely on the list, is singing "take me out to the ballgame" at Wrigley this Saturday. I'm looking into buying tickets under the press box so that I can go and boo him (and also catch a cubs game), so if anyone is interested, let me know.

Caveats

2007-07-16T22:11:00.000-05:00

1) I overuse commas, all the time, so much so that 9 out of 10 sentences I write would drive an english teacher mad, especially my rhet teacher from college, so don't bring it up, I won't change, no matter what,
2) I don't write in a stream-of-conciousness way, I just have the attention span of a goldfish. Everything I write weaves in and out of the realm of having a point to it because that's the way my brain is.
3) If this is boring, shouldn't you be working anyways?

You are not special

2007-07-13T13:06:00.000-05:00

I don’t know how many people have seen the “Little Deviants” commercials for the Toyota Scion, but they aggravate the living crap out of me. For those of you who haven’t seen it, little demons run around a city driving scions and decapitating “sheeple”, whose crime is apparently conformity by way of not buying a customizable scion. Let’s set aside the insulting nature of referring to people who think the scion is an ugly piece of crap, and the advocating of cutting their heads off, to focus on the issue of why this dumbass ad campaign is even being run.

Advertisers know that our generation is insanely self-centered, and most of their “generation-y” focused advertising is all about exploiting that. A side effect of being incredibly self-centered is the belief that you’re more important than everybody else, reinforced by all of our parents, educators, telletubbies telling us that we’re special for our entire childhoods. It sounded like a great idea, to boost all of our self-esteems, but it mostly contributed to our ability to justify acting like inconsiderate jerks.

When you’re more important than everyone else, you’re free to treat them however you’d like. Zoom around people in traffic on the shoulder, cut in front of people in line, toss garbage wherever the hell you feel like. It’s all justified because you’re special, who the hell are those other people anyways. Of course if anyone else does these things, it’s because they’re raging assholes. (If you want to know more about this kind of justification look up “fundamental attribution error”)

Ok, that was a bit of a different tangent, but it’s related to the problem. People in our generation feel this driving need to be better than other people. How could we possibly be special if we’re not better than others? Everyone has their own personal ways of feeling special, some are better at sports, some are better at school, and some buy scions. I guess the upside to owning a customizable scion is that you are instantly a daring, break-the-mold, little demon creature. At least this is the appeal of owning a scion that Toyota is trying to sell.

What the hell is the purpose of this ad campaign? As far as I can figure it appeals to people who feel that they are outside the mainstream, above the influences of popular culture, but at the same time are bitter enough about being spurned by it to go on massive campaigns of random decapitation. It’s the crowd that would have worn black trench coats, 80’s punk clothing, or listened to slayer in order to be non-conformist, but wanted something a little trendier. The irony is that Toyota is advertising a trend of non-conformity, but they’re certainly not alone in that regard. What they are alone in is making a commercial where they glorify DECAPITATING PEOPLE WHO DON’T OWN SCIONS. It’s not the violence that bothers me, it’s the utter idiocy of insulting every consumer who doesn’t buy a scion. But it’s ok, because Toyota thinks you’re too stupid to connect the scion insult to any of their other products (the name Toyota appears nowhere in the commercial).

Stupid as this ad is though, it works, and that what pisses me off the most. There are people out there who drive around in their damned scions looking down at other “sheeple” for their helpless conformity. And there are plenty of other people looking down on others for whatever product, viewpoint, and interest they aren’t a part of. God I really want to rant about so many other things that this ties into; selfish capitalism, more about attribution error, corporate personhood, advertising excess. But if this goes on too much longer it’ll just get more and more incoherent as my short attention span wanes, and there’s a good chance you’ve gotten to the point where your attention span is spent reading this, if you’ve even gotten this far. Besides, if I want to start ranting regularly I’ll need to leave some topics for later.

First Post!

2007-07-11T22:29:00.001-05:00

It's the first attempt at a blog post, so I'll start it light with something I overheard today:
TA - "I get a rash sometimes when I drink, but only with hard liquor, never with wine"
Student - "Well, wine is fermented, but hard liquor is distilled, so maybe it has something to do with that."

Seriously, if you don't understand alcohol, you shouldn't be allowed to drink it. I'm all for lowering the drinking age to 18 if it's accompanied by an alcohol competency test. Part of the test would be getting hammered with the administrator of the test (like the driving test at the dmv), and then you are driven to a random place 2 miles from home and have to get back by dawn.