0
comments
Monday, December 01, 2008
0
comments
Monday, December 01, 2008
2
comments
Friday, November 28, 2008
If I claimed that I had been doing anything but completely neglecting my posts, I would be made into a bigger liar than Sarah Palin claiming she said "thanks, but no thanks". However, I come bearing gifts. Since I began this blog, and I got a job working at a "dot com", I have learned quite a bit about blogs, blogging, bloggers, and blogging about bloggers who blog about blogging. I have decided to reinvent this site under a new name:
The Leviathan
I am not exactly sure what the tone and content will be for the new site. I know it will focus on politics, but, the focus will be a more "blog friendly" version, posting short analysis about the various news stories of the day (like Gotta Spend Money to get Free Money), while also providing a weekly long format post talking about political philosophy, or the politics of the day (like Protection from the Tyranny of Government). The idea behind this is to continue the spirit of the blog, grow it, and also not make each post as time consuming and chore-like.
While there is very little at The Leviathan as of yet, I hope that in the comming weeks it can grow and expand. I plan to have an RSS feed, to make it easier to keep track of new posts, as well as any other modern doohikies that might come about.
I appreciate the kind words and comments over the short-lived timespan of For A Better America, and I hope to see you all posting in the new comments sections at TheLeviathan.net
3
comments
Friday, October 17, 2008
Some of you may have already seen this, but Justin sent me this video. It's amazing. There's already a wikipedia article about Joe the Plumber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_plumber . I feel bad for the poor guy, the rhetoric of politicians ended up screwing him, like a sacrificial lamb for their campaign. Although, its not unusual to see one person getting sacrificed to further the goals of a politicians. It's ok because its good for the country.
5
comments
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
From the interesting Correlation department: According to MAPLight.org, members of congress that voted for the bailout receive about 50% more in campaign contributions from bank lobbies, than those who voted no. Of course, that is not something that these congressmen and women would EVER take into account with voting, right?
1 comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
I’ve been listening to a podcast of a show called Free Talk Live. One of the hosts, Ian, has a tendency to be a complete jerk to anyone he disagrees with. His position is that if you’re not a borderline anarchist, then you support government sanctioned violence, and therefore you don’t deserve his respect. In his activism with the Free State Project, he has recently been interacting with judges in a variety of small cases that are arising in the protest movement that has developed there, and even in cases where the judges have made concessions, which are small victories for the movement, he continues to be derisive.
I can surely understand his point of view. When you have a strongly held position such as his that “anyone who supports big government is directly trying to take my freedom”, it is easy to develop negative feelings against them. After all, the logical conclusion is that these people also want to harm you. But in this case I don’t think most people approach it with that mindset. When the average person says “I think the government should help ______” they don’t think of the logical consequences of how that’s funded with taxes, and how those taxes can be considered theft, etc. They just have this image of the government as a “catch-all” organization to help everyone in need. These aren’t fascists, they’re just misinformed.
This attitude of “if you don’t agree with me, screw you”, is terribly unproductive for convincing people to your viewpoint. It reminds me of the problem that plagued Ayn Rand. She was a brilliant woman, a deft author, but was completely unpleasant to anyone she disagreed with. Her works have been demonized by people who knew nothing more of her than how she treated people.
Like the old adage says, you catch more flies with honey. In the political realm most people’s opinions and preferences are much like children who don’t know any better. If you’re trying to teach a child math, you don’t yell at him for not knowing differential equations after he finally understands division. You congratulate him and encourage him, and keep trying to teach him more. If anyone wants to see our country return to a more liberty oriented society, we need to encourage and thank the bureaucrats that make baby steps towards liberty, and not insult them for not doing enough.
0
comments
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Six years ago President Bush appeared before a banner on a warship that said Mission Accomplished. To every observer, he appeared to be claiming that the Iraq War was over and had been a success. Today, we're still in that war. Yesterday, John McCain took credit for the successful passing of the bailout of the banks. A few hours later, the bailout plan failed. McCain is such a maverick, he's willing to spit in the face of conventional wisdom. "I've never touted the party line against counting chickens before they hatch".
More on this at Politico
5
comments
Sunday, August 31, 2008
When I heard that McCain had chosen Palin as his running mate, my first thought was Michael Palin of Monty Python fame. But much like the Python's Spanish Inquisition, no one really expected the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin from Alaska. Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condaleeza Rice, Gen. Colin Powell, Gov. Bobby Jindal; these are names that I expected to hear in terms of the nomination. All of them (perhaps with the exception of Romney) would've been sufficiently outside of the "WASP" category to allow McCain, the quintessential old white guy in politics, to compete with the historical nomination of Obama. And all of them would accomplish the goal of diversity without having people wonder "Who is this person?".
So who is Gov. Sarah Palin?
Wikipedia tells us she's 44, current Governor of Alaska, previously chairperson of the Orwellian-named Alaska Oil and Gas conservation commission. The bulk of her political experience comes from Wasilla, AK, a town of around 8000 people where she was Mayor from 1996-2002.
Although she hasn't been Governor for long, she's made a big splash. She exposed Alaska Republican Party Chairman for some shady dealings he made while working at the Oil and Gas commission, she defeated the incumbent Governor Murkowski in the Republican primary, won the general election, and then auctioned off the jet that Murkowski bought on Ebay. From these instances we can see a picture of someone who's not afraid to stand up for what she believes in, who wants to get rid of the excesses of government, and who has accomplished great things in her limited time in politics.
Palin will be a great pick to energize all of those people that were going to begrudgingly vote for him because he was a Republican, but really didn't like him because he wasn't conservative enough. It also might help to distance McCain from the Bush presidency by showing someone who is a conservative, but isn't one of the good ol' boys, reinforcing McCain's image as a maverick. But for those of us who really don't have a clear decision made of whom to vote for, the swing voters, and even the Hillary supporters thinking about voting Republican, the pick makes absolutely no sense.
McCain is the oldest man to ever get the nomination for president, he's also a cancer survivor, a torture survivor, and, if elected, will have the most stressful job in the world. If the average life expectancy in the us is 75 years old, there's a good chance he wont make it through his first term, let alone 8 years. What that'll leave us with is a former Ms. Alaska runner up, who's bulk of experience comes from running a town that is smaller than the University of Idaho she got her B.A. in Communications. She'll also have 2 years of experience running Alaska, a state that is less populated than my hometown of El Paso, Tx. What about her foreign policy experience? According to her spokesman, she's traveled outside the country twice, once to Ireland, and once to Germany and Kuwait to visit the Alaska National Guard troops. If and when McCain kicks the bucket, is this who we want leading the country?
And what about other things in her life? Does a mother of 5 young children, one of whom is 4 months old and has down syndrome, really have the time to be Vice President, and maybe president?
Gov. Palin is surely an accomplished woman, and probably incredibly hardworking, and intelligent. Perhaps she would and will make an excellent VP and, if needed, commander in chief. But it's hard not to wonder if McCain didn't go out of his mind with the choice. At the very least, he's going to be eaten alive in the media for it, and at the very worst, in a moment of national tragedy, he could leave the country with someone completely unprepared to fill his shoes in the Oval office.
6
comments
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Welcome back folks. I'm back, big as life and twice as ugly posting from my new temporary headquarters in Wylie, TX. The move from Chicago went smoothly, with the only casualty being the transmission of my car. Perhaps it is an omen: the 'reverse' function is broken, as now my little 4-cylinder can only move forward. Hopefully in a few short weeks I'll be moving forward to my new life in Austin, Texas.
If you know anyone in that area, let me know. I'm jumping into the water head first, and I don't know very many people there, so it'd be great to start getting connected.
Cheers from the Lone Star State,
Ricky.
1 comments
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The stars were aligned today to make my return to the blogosphere as easy as possible. As I sat down to make my normal rounds of news sites I see this headline over at Politico:Ted Stevens indicted. Sen Stevens has been a US Senator since 1968 and is the longest standing Republican Senator in the country. He is allegedly also the the most corrupt Senator in Washington. Today he was indicted on 7 counts of false reporting on his Senate income disclosure forms. Apparently VECO, an oil services firm, did about $250,000 worth of renovations to his home which he forgot to mention...7 years in a row. Whoops!
Of course, no one believes that receiving that much money could possibly influence a senator, right? Well, the government isn't alleging bribery, and during the official press conference announcement, they made clear that there was no quid-pro-quo agreement between the Senator and VECO but that “received solicitations for official actions from Allen and other VECO employees, and that Sen. Stevens used his position and office on behalf of VECO during that same time period”.
Unlike Rep. Randall Cunningham who had a bribe menu, Sen. Stevens is probably too intelligent to put his corruption down on paper. The Senator's defense is going to argue that there's no proof that it affected the Senator's judgment. It's going to argue that the Senator didn't know that he had to report these gifts, and that he shouldn't have to. They're going to claim that, there's really nothing wrong with a Senator take hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from companies whose future he can strongly influence.
Whether the corruption by Sen. Stevens is proven to be real or just a technicality, the publics faith in congress, and particularly in the Republicans, is going to take a hit. "If a men believe the situation to be real, it is real in its consequences". The National Review is calling for Sen. Stevens' resignation. Congressmen are distancing themselves from him. It has also thrown the McCain campaign and talking heads off message, as they have to answer questions about Sen. Stevens instead of what they wanted to talk about.
Ted Stevens has spent his career in the Senate getting ridiculous amounts of Pork for his state. The "Bridge to Nowhere" was supposed to connect an island of 50 people to the mainland for $320 million, or $6.2 Million dollars per person. While plans for the bridge were eventually canceled, it shows the disrespect that the Alaska Senator has for the American people. Even if Sen. Stevens is found guilty of the charges, it is unlikely that he will face any jail time because of his age. Still, it is encouraging to see that there has recently been such aggressive prosecution of corruption in Washington and that even the career Senator from Alaska is not immune to the law.
2
comments
Thursday, July 03, 2008
He kicked in doors and made arrests. He helped the people in Gerald, Missouri end their problems with Meth. Sometimes he was a Federal Marshall, others, a member of the DEA, but it was not always clear which. When asked to show a warrant he informed people he was a federal agent, and didn't need one. Sergeant Bill was no federal agent. He was an unemployed former rent-a-cop who went on a spree of arrests with the approval of the Gerald Police Department. When he first arrived, the Police Department confirmed his credentials with the "Multijusrisdictional Task Force", a non-existent entity whose name comes from Beverly Hills Cop II. While the Gasconade County Republican ousted him on May 14th, he has yet to be charged with a crime.
I shouldn't be surprised that he hasn't been charged. What he did is no worse than what actual enforcement agencies do. No-knock warrants combined with mistaken addresses can end up with SWAT members shooting little old ladies. What's absolutely disgusting is that some tout him as a hero:I’m not saying it was legal or lawful. But look, they were very effective while he was present. I don’t think Gerald is having the drug problem they were having. I’ve heard from some residents who were thrilled that he was there.
his lawyer said in a Fox News Channel interview.
I say this on no uncertain terms: this man, and anyone who knowingly assisted him, needs to be thrown in prison for a long, long time. That his lawyer has the chutzpah to suggest that the ends justified the means is an indication of just how far the erosion of civil rights and the rule of law has gone. The people in Gerald complied without a warrant likely figuring that just as so many rights lost in the "post-9/11 world" the necessity of a warrant was considered too big a burden for federal law enforcement.
Linda Trest, the reporter that broke the story, was able to uncover his lie in an hour of research. On NPR's Talk of the Nation, Ms. Trest claims that dogs in Gerald go through a more rigorous scrutiny with their vaccinations than "Sergeant Bill's" credentials got. Cursory investigations found evidence that some victims were robbed, and many assaulted with a sawed-off shotgun. 17 of his victims are suing him and the city. According to Fox News one victim was an "an elderly woman who was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward because she didn't cooperate with the police"
The ends do not justify the means. The protections the constitution guarantees are in place to lessen abuses of power by those whom we elect to govern us. It is never acceptable that a man with or without official authority go around terrorizing citizens with no burden of proof and no accountability to anything except his whims. Over a month has passed since his actions were discovered and reported, yet he remains a free man, making a circuit of talk shows and news programs. No crime has been charged, no bail has been necessary. The biggest criminal in Gerald has yet to pay any consequences, as he gets protection under the law, something his victims never got.
5
comments
Monday, June 30, 2008
NPR is holding a pledge drive right now, trying to raise funds for its operation. As it is mostly a listener supported station (they do receive a bit of government funding), they make pleas to reason and emotion to motivate their listeners to pledge. I enjoy NPR and I hope to one day be in a position to be able to donate. When they returned to their regular programming there was a spokesperson for Causes for Change International on Worldview. The organization works doing a variety of different community service projects in poor areas of Ecuador. As you would expect, Causes for Change was also making a plea for support. While the elements were similar to those on the NPR pledge drive, there was one definite difference: little white lies.
Chicago Public Radio tells you of the content it brings you; tells you their operating costs; points out the benefits of not only keeping them on the air, but of being a member ('Thank You' gifts and such). They plead their case openly and honestly, and know that the service they offer is worth while. When the people from Causes for Change plead they offer nothing in return but memories and satisfaction of helping others. While helping others may be a worthy cause, the problem comes from the form it is presented.
Among the various anecdotes she gave was a story describing the economic conditions of single mothers in Honduras. She related how many of them worked "80 hour weeks" to feed "sometimes six or more people". While this in itself isn't far fetched, she also said that many of these women survive on "no more than one tortilla a day for themselves". While I have not been there myself to confirm the story personally, there is an obvious problem with this claim. Looking at it simply mathematically: suppose that one of these "many women" being referred to was able to worth 80 hour weeks on 2000 many calories a day. According to this calorie counter, even the most calorie heavy tortilla only has about 170 calories. That leaves our hard working head of the family short 1830 calories a day, and at that rate, she will starve to death in about a month.
Obviously, the account was an exaggeration; a little white lie. But without the use of reason, the exaggeration would've remained uncovered. "How terrible", we're expected to say "that these women are starving when I have so much to eat". Yet I can't help but be insulted. The assumption behind the little white lie is that if you or I heard the truth, we'd be too selfish (or too stupid) to help. The complaint about Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" wasn't that his claims were untrue, but that by telling people the truth, they would cease their efforts to lead a more eco-friendly lifestyle.
Most of us recognize these as little white lies for what they are, yet we let them slide because "the ends justify the means". It's ok that they lied because it will help people. When the bum on the streets approaches us to tell his little white lie, most of us dismiss it and ignore him. When the beggars wear a suit, we praise them for their altruism.
1 comments
Friday, June 27, 2008
In the comments to "Shootin' Mad", Isaac asks:
Isn't the amendment not only intended to afford us the right to protect ourselves from one another, but also the right to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our own government?
While usually I would reply in the comments, this is a long enough response to merit it's own post. The problem is that the government cannot perform it's legitimate duties (prevention/rectification of force, fraud, and the threat thereof) if every citizen/group of citizens has enough firepower to protect themselves from the tyranny of government.
Every minor infraction requiring state intervention, including legitimate ones, would have a high risk factor for the enforcing body. To be effective, the government would have to increase the power behind it's force. As the firepower of the government increases to be able to fight crime, the firepower of the people to "prevent tyranny" would have to concurrently increase. Essentially the government would be unable to do it's job as long as civilians always had enough firepower to match it.
This is the fundamental idea that Hobbes tackles in Leviathan. In order for government to perform it's duties, it needs to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. However, once you give that right up to the government, it will inevitably and consistently increase it's scope and power as no non-government entity would have the ability to prevent it from doing so.
The founders were aware of this, and in order to help prevent against "the Leviathan" they instituted checks and balances. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the voice of the Constitution, and therefore the people, and stop the more egregious abuses by the Federal Government. However the Court itself has no real power to enforce its decisions. Without a police force or army at its command, all of its rulings are merely suggestions at the mercy of the Executive branch's will to enforce them.
Lets say elect a President who, due to some terrible tragedy, declares a state of martial law. A group of citizens sues, and the Supreme Court determines the martial law is unconstitutional and should be ended immediately. If the Executive were to ignore the order, the Judicial branch would be unable to enforce it. The US Marshals, the enforcement branch of the Judicial System, would be inadequate to prevent the military takeover by the Executive branch, a responsibility which would fall on the citizens.
While this is far fetched and theoretical, it serves to illustrate the catch-22 of the Second Amendment. If civilians have the firepower to defend themselves from the tyranny of government, the government has to engage in an arms race with it's own citizens to complete its legitimate task of protecting them. If civilians are restricted in the ownership of weapons, the government has an easier chore in enforcement, but there is no real way to prevent egregious abuses of power. I don't know what the answer or solution to this is. While I hope the day never comes when I have to figure it out.
2
comments
Thursday, June 26, 2008
According to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, evidence that "the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian, uses of weapons" is "nowhere to be found". Apparently the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with with limiting the regulation of weapons. This was in his dissent to the controversial decision this week from the Supreme Court that the constitution does not allow "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." This is the first time in 70 years that the Supreme Court has looked at the gun rights issue, and it's starting quite the debate.
Mayor Daley's reaction was less than calm and collected:"If they [the Supreme Court] think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets if that's they're thinking."
It seems the Mayor thinks that the decision was to force everyone to wield guns all the time. Hopefully, a few quotes from the actual decision will clear that up:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
It seems that his most vocal concern is unfounded. Seems unlikely that this ruling will bring on more 18th century style pistol duels. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.
SCOTUS, DC v. Heller
So what has changed here, and how will it affect the City of Chicago? Well, the only thing that is certain, is that citizens of the District of Columbia, will now be allowed to get Gun Licenses to legally purchase and keep a gun for use in their home for self defense. If it is ruled that it does indeed apply to the City of Chicago, the gun ban that has been in place for over 25 years will have to be withdrawn.
The concern with this is that Chicago is a City already riddled with gun violence and that anything but full-on prohibition of guns, will only exacerbate the problem. But Chicago's gun woes have persisted despite the gun ban. From 2004 to the end of 2007 there were 43,685 gun related crimes in Chicago. For a city in which guns are supposed to be illegal, 10,000 gun crimes a year seems awfully high.
There are some people who believe that the right to bear arms should extend to all forms of weapons; I am not one of them. I don't believe we need a society with citizens who are all armed with military grade machine guns. I do believe that the right to defend your home, your life, and your property is essential for every individual on the planet. When a handgun is no longer enough to achieve this security I may reconsider my position. For the time being, I like the fact that the Supreme Court has decided people can own guns for the protection of their homes.
In the end it comes down to a statement I heard so long ago that I can't remember its source. In a society where guns are illegal, the only people with guns are criminals. People who are going to break the law and commit an armed felony don't care if guns are illegal, so lets allow law-abiding citizens the tools to protect themselves.
3
comments
Monday, June 23, 2008
One of the many things I hate about the Government is that the usual approach to creating change is by enacting new restrictions. Want more efficient cars? Simply prevent people from selling inefficient ones. The current system might be effective but I've long thought that competitions such as the ones the X PRIZE Foundation holds, that substantially reward success rather than penalize failure through force, were a much more interesting proposition. That's why I am so encouraged when I hear that John McCain is proposing this style of public policy in his campaign appearances.
McCain's proposal is to offer a $300 Million prize for the company that develops a battery that "far surpasses existing technology". It is inevitable that the implementation of the competition will arrive with customary abundance of bureaucratic red tape and the details as to what defines "far surpasses" are obviously not yet clear. But specifics aside this is still one of the few 'fresh' ideas I've seen in this year's race, and one of even fewer ideas that I like.
Left-leaning pundits like Wonkette are wasting no time on denouncing the "evils" of the idea:And now John McCain will give the rich, global corporation that puts together its fancy car battery first a tax dollar from each and every one of you.
While I share the apprehension of it being tax-payer funded, I vehemently disagree with the implication that successes in environmentally friendly technologies are somehow lessened by the inventor's desire for profitability.
The way things stand right now, it seems unlikely that McCain will be elected President. If he were to be elected I wonder if this policy idea would be enacted or abandoned. Regardless, it is fantastic to hear proposals that seek to reward excellence rather than just raise the bar for the lowest common denominator.
2
comments
Friday, June 20, 2008
One of the more audacious moves that our legislators have pulled on American tax-payers was the passing of public financing for Presidential candidates. Under the guise of preserving the "integrity" of our political system, and not allowing companies and individuals to have too much "undue influence" on our elected officials, they generously offer matching funds for candidates, as well as a variety of other services, for which the tax-payers pick up the tab. In exchange, they agree to a wide variety of rules and regulations about the campaign instituted theoretically ensure fairness. Yesterday we were able to see an interesting dichotomy in the supposed "small-government party: John McCain accepted an $84 Million grant from the US government, while the big-government candidate, Barrack Obama, rejected it.
The irony of what happened here seems to be lost on many, who are focusing mostly on attacking Obama for a previous statement saying he would accept the funds. It is amazing for me to see the candidate that many -including myself- fear will do much to increase the size of government, also be the first candidate in 38 years to reject government subsidies for his campaign.
From every logical perspective, it makes no sense for Obama to accept it. He has had record breaking fund raising, having raised almost three times as much as McCain. The money he would be eligible for wouldn't benefit him as much as the restrictions would hurt. But instead of using this as a great opportunity to claim it as a victory for government reform and decreasing the size of government, Obama's camp is saying that the government simply isn't offering enough.
From the Politico.com article:In order to fix the system, Kalman said, candidates who accept public financing should get more than $84 million and should be entitled to additional cash if they find themselves assailed by 527s – both provisions in the bill Obama co-sponsored.
Absolutely pathetic. Apparently its not enough that we're paying for bridges to nowhere, paying people to not work, and paying for McCain's campaign; Obama's thinks we need to pay more, in order to make it worth his while.
I really wish I could like Obama's policies as much as I like his persona. He's a great orator, he's charismatic, he just portrays that certain je ne sais quoi that one wants to have in the person who represents our country to the world. I just cannot get over the fact that he wants to expand entitlements, create socialized health care, and generally increase the size of our government. When I first heard that he was the first presidential candidate in 38 years to reject campaign finance I allowed myself to hope that perhaps this was a hint that he wouldn't be that bad, and perhaps that he'd consider at least some rhetoric about reducing the size of government. Instead what I got was what I should've expected to begin with, more of the same propaganda that the solution is to make the government do more, instead of less.
3
comments
Thursday, June 19, 2008
You know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of watching the news every day, hungry for information, and receiving nothing but crumbs. It is impossible to obtain information from these petty peddlers who seem to believe that flashy on-screen graphics and bottom-of-the screen quotes (of what was said two seconds earlier) is a substitute for producing actual content. I watched several hours of the CNN coverage of the June 3rd primary before realizing that I knew no more at the end of the third hour than I did 15 minutes into the first.
What surprises me the most is that they claim they’re adapting to their viewer base. Their excuse for the excrement they ejaculate is “this is what America wants”. While there is surely a basis of truth in their plea, it’s also a copout. Simply said, infotainment is easier to deliver than information, and infotainment sells better than the news. I don’t begrudge them their right to gain as many viewers as they possibly can to increase their revenue. It is a business, and for a business to not seek profitability would be an idiotic contradiction. But the direction they have chosen to take towards obtaining profits precludes them from the claim that they are journalists.
It is much easier to do what I do, take a small piece of information and build an entertaining dialogue around it, than it is to research and report the entirety of a situation. A researcher must strive to be objective, but an infotainer gains from the loss of objectivity, because it allows for wild speculation. The infotainment industry doesn’t have to engage in the struggles of competition that existed in the past, where the broadcaster with the most information, the clearest reporting, the deepest digging, got the ratings. Now they can simply sell their perspective, with spin pandering to viewers that already agree with them. Take 30 seconds of information; spend the next 29.5 minutes spinning it left or right; profit. For me to say this might be considered self-condemnation. The difference is that I'm I’m an editorialist. It is not my job to research and discover the intricate facts, but to interpret them and give my opinion, and I make no pretense that what I'm doing is journalism.
If we are to live in the 24 hour news cycle, in the age of ADD and information bombardment, then the way of progress is to offer more through these media, not less. One would think that by this point in the presidential campaign, a real journalistic outfit would be able to publish a concise set of views on different issues by the major candidates, but with the exception of a few sound bites, trying to find out a candidates position on any specific issue is more difficult than finding out what Britney Spears wore to dinner last week. Instead we get a cult of personality for Obama on CNN and NBC, and for McCain on Fox News.
I suppose this post does not follow the traditional voice of this blog, but it comes out of the extreme frustration of seeking for news for the past couple of hours, and realizing it is nigh impossible to find it in the traditional avenues. Like many of my generation, I am unable to view the newscasters of this age with the same respect and trust that my parents and grandparents had in theirs. To attempt to compare Walter Cronkite to Bill O’Reily is as laughable as comparing the journalistic standards of the Enquirer to the New York Times. I can’t fight the feeling that the newsman is smiling not because of the satisfaction of a job well done, but the coy smirk of a con man that has tricked a mark. I struggle to find the difference between MSNBC and Entertainment Tonight. Yet we accept one as journalism and the other as pop-trash, when the only difference is the prestige we give by our willingness to accept the farce.
1 comments
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
What happens when you rely on the government to do your dirty work, instead of your success? Well, sometimes it comes back to bite you. A few weeks ago I discussed how the broadcast radio industry was lobbying to increase the royalties paid by internet radio. Well, it seems that now it's coming back to haunt them. This week the internet radio crowd got together with recording artists and are now asking congress force broadcast radio to pay royalties.
The National Association of Broadcasters' spokesman, Dennis Wharton said the following:“The value of over-the-air play so far outweighs these other technologies — whether it’s satellite radio or Web streaming, it’s not a true comparison. Ask any artist what they’d prefer to be played on,” Wharton said.
That argument seems to make sense, the artists are getting a huge benefit and they should have a choice whether to accept the benefit in exchange for not receiving royalties. However, it appears recording artists don't get to make that decision:The push to force radio stations to pay artists’ royalties dates back to the 1930s, when big-band leader Paul Whiteman instructed his record label to print “Not authorized for radio play” on his records. Radio still played the records. Whiteman sued and lost on appeal, and the industry has been fighting for royalties ever since, Simson said.
This entire ordeal is just baffling to me. Does Amazon.com get to give away my essays, since its good advertising for my books? I am hard pressed to understand what kind of logical court would decide in favor of the recording industry in that specific case. I don't think the government should be part of it either way, it should be an agreement between the radio companies and the broadcast companies, with the government just enforcing their contracts. But now that the radio companies have opened the flood gates with their attempts to squash internet radio, there's a vindictive side of me that hopes they have to pay too, but the entire ordeal worries me.
Instead of people making money based on the value of their service, they are making it by using the government to put the competition out of business. By fighting the broadcasting companies with their own dirty tricks, they might get their way this time, but they have accepted and engaged in trading in the clout economy. I would rather see the little guy win because we was doing things better than the big guy. I don't want to grow up in a world where it's not what you do, but who you know, that brings you success.
0
comments
Friday, June 13, 2008
This week: Kucinish, ED Hill, Rezko, and Russert
Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought up 35 articles of Impeachment against President Bush this week. The pretty much universal reaction, including from the DNC leadership was "What's the point". Kucinich aparently gets extremely cranky when the media stops portraying him as a lunatic and has to find new and more ridiculous ways to get his 15 minutes of fame.
E.D. Hill, who referred to a "fist pump" between Obama and His wife as a "terrorist fist jab" has lost her show because of it. Ms. Hill will continue to work for Fox News. When I first heard about the "terrorist fist jab" it made me laugh in shock about the ridiculousness of some pundits. However, after learning a bit more, I tend to believe Ms. Hill that she was just trying to set up the debate. "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently," said Hill in her show.
I guess it really depends on her intent. If she meant to imply that they were terrorists, then she got what she deserved. Based on the context, I think that she was trying to point out how ridiculous the over analysis and spin was. If this is the case, she could've used a different example.
Tony Rezko, who is now in prison on charges of "wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and attempted extortion", is claiming that federal prosecutors were pressuring him to implicate Obama:They are pressuring me to tell them the ‘wrong’ things that I supposedly know about Gov. Blagojevich and Sen. Obama,” Rezko wrote in an undated letter released by the court this week. “I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the governor or the senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people.”
I think everyone was expecting Obama's name to be drug through the mud during this trail and to many people's surprise and disappointment (or glee) it wasn't.
Finally, this morning Tim Russert died of a heart attack at age 58. Russert was the host of the show Meet the Press. He was known as one of the last people in the media willing to ask the tough questions. For more information than you ever needed to know about him, you can check out NBC's webpage, which has turned into a virtual shrine for the day.
Type rest of the post here
3
comments
Thursday, June 12, 2008
It’s not news that with the pure quantity of information on the internet comes a fair amount of misinformation. Anyone who has been using e-mail for more than a few weeks or so has gotten messages about the threat of microwaving water in a ceramic cup, or about needles filled with AIDS tainted blood hiding inside seats at movie theaters. These kinds of urban legends have always existed, and the internet just makes it easier to spread them. Since 1995 Snopes.com has worked to debunk these myths, from pop-rocks to Coca-Cola . This being an election year, there’s been a barrage of these urban-legend-style e-mails flowing at a constant pace into my inbox about the various candidates.
In the heat of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, there was an e-mail about Hillary Clinton’s pastor being a pedophile. I remember an e-mail about McCain not being a US Citizen, though I cannot find it now. I also remember about half a dozen different e-mails about Barrack Obama, in both Spanish and English, about him being a radical Muslim and probable terrorist. Of course, none of these stories are true. I’m not sure which pathology is worse: the one that leads to writing these fantastical stories or the one that results in believing them.
If it were just limited to chain mail in your inbox it wouldn’t be as bad as the fact that some “news” outlets have taken to repeating these claims. While Snopes.com already addresses the majority of these claims about our politicians already, the Obama campaign has decided to fight back. Their new (unfortunately named) website Fight the Smears was launched recently in an attempt to fight the most egregious of these attacks, with the first round taking on “Rumors” perpetuated by Rush Limbaugh and other republican pundits.
It is sad that there is so much misinformation out there, that the campaign had to create a page dedicated to fighting it. On the other hand it is encouraging that not only can the media and the people demand more accountability from politicians, but Politicians can now demand the same accountability from reporters and the people. In the end, while the internet does make it easier for cowards to send anonymous e-mails perpetuating lies, it also makes it easier for those seeking the truth to spread it. It injects internet culture with a needed dose of skepticism, even if it is mixed with a bit of spin. For those who wanna skip the spin, do what I do and just use Snopes.
5
comments
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
"Five billion years from now the sun will run out of Hydrogen gas" according to The Future of Energy. While worrying about the fate of the Sun is a waste of energy, for as far back as I can remember people have been worrying about the supply of oil. Having been born after the oil crisis in the late 70's, I have not experienced a world in which there wasn't widespread concern about our energy future. While the government spends billions of dollars on "energy alternatives", I would like to focus on what I believe will be the true solution to our energy woes: people out to make a buck.
I have more faith in entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to solve the energy crisis than I do in government subsidies. Government funded solutions like Ethanol are a failure and a waste of money. The reason they exist is more to do with politics and special interest lobbying than it is with finding realistic solutions for the end consumer.
In the field of power plants Ocean Power Technologies. The company, which netted over $90 Million in its IPO last year, develops buoys that use the mechanical energy of ocean waves to produce electricity. The company expects to be able to compete with traditional power plants within 10 years.
In automotive technology, I recently heard about Zero Pollution Motors, and their new "Air Car". Set for production by 2010, the Air Car's motor was designed by Guy Negre, who used to design engines for Formula 1 cars. Currently, the company claims that the fuel efficiency is about 105 Miles per gallon with an 8 gallon tank. Instead of using the gasoline to power the car, it is used to power a compressor that refills the air tanks when going at speeds above 35mph. For more in cars you can check out the X-prize competition, which is offering $10 Million prize for a car competition for real-cars (not concept cars) that offer more than 100mpg.
While this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of profitable solutions to our energy problems, it shows some of the ingenuity and creativity of the market. These and probably thousands of other companies are concerned not only with saving the environment, but also with making a profit. While I can't predict which, if any, of the new technologies will end up displacing the current standards, I can pretty much guarantee that the innovation that leads to it will come from the private sector, not the public one.
0
comments
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
In a year when presidential politics are getting groundbreaking achievements in terms of race, sex, and even age, it's laughable to see how some people cling to xenophobia and racism as a campaign tactic. I'm referring to Buddy Witherspoon, a Republican running in the South Carolina primary against incumbent US Senator Lindsey Graham who has Sen. McCain's endorsement. I know little of the Buddy Whitherspoon's politics, but his latest campaign ad gave me a hint:
(video after the jump)
It seems that Buddy has uncovered the biggest skeleton in Sen. Graham's closet: people who speak Spanish like him. The absolute dearth of information in what I would guess is intended to be an attack ad is laughable. This ad isn't likely to do much to help Buddy win the election, at least I hope not,However, this ad does show exactly the kind of strategy you really can't afford to use in the "information age".
I assume that the point of the ad was to allude that Sen. Graham isn't tough enough on immigration. What the ad actually shows is that Hispanic people who like Sen. Graham, implying that these people, because of the fact that they're speaking Spanish, are illegal immigrants. As a native born American of Mexican descent, and a native speaker of both Spanish and English, I can't help but feel that this guy is spitting in my face. That hardly seems like a sound policy for a Republican party who, as the Pew Hispanic Center claims, owed the 2004 election of President Bush to Hispanic-American voters.
The saving grace for the Republicans in this state, as far as Hispanics go, is Sen Lindsey Graham himself. When I went to the official site of the Buddy Witherspoon campaign, I was able to find this post titled "Lindsey Graham wants the "bigots" to shut up. Again Buddy's campaign seems to hit way off the mark. Instead of making Sen. Graham look as if he's a nut in favor of illegal immigration, he looks like a surprisingly reasonable man. The video of his speech is below:
5
comments
Monday, June 09, 2008
Yesterday I went to Bluesfest in Grant park, and one of the announcers said something that bothered me. During his introduction to B.B. King he said that the City of Chicago had been "Giving us Bluesfest for over 30 years", which brought loud applause from the audience. I like the Blues Festival, and the other large events that are held in Chicago's Grant Park, but the idea that it's a "free gift" from the government is one that bothers me.
According to Melodytrip.com the Chicago Blues Festival is "the largest free-admission blues festival in the world". While the admission to the event is free, the cost of putting it on certainly isn't. From what I can gather from the City of Chicago site, this and other events held around the City are organized by the City of Chicago Mayor's Office of Special events. According to the 2008 Preliminary budget for the City of Chicago (page 23), this office of the Mayor is receiving $6 Million dollars this year. While the cost of the events subsidized by corporate sponsors, the budget of the office organizing the events is paid for by tax-payers. Anything that you have to pay for, is hardly a free gift.
As the government grows in size and scope I keep hearing about more things that are "free" services from the Government. It bothers me that so many people just accept this at face value: Free parks, free festivals, free schools, free health care. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this is especially true when referring to the government. The source of the governments revenue is always taxes and fines, which are paid for by citizens. Therefore, when anything the government does is called "free" what they really mean is "funded by taxes". If we accept this language of "Free" as being appropriate, we're accepting the idea that the Government is a benevolent donor that "gives" us things, and that we should be thankful for these gifts. The truth is that any time the government "gives" something, it first had to take from someone. In the case of the Mayor's Office of Special Events, the bill is footed by the Hotel Operator's Occupation Tax: The State of Illinois Hotel Operators' Occupation Tax is imposed on receipts from the occupation of renting, leasing, or letting rooms to individuals occupying such accommodations for less than 30 consecutive days.
So rather than thanking the government for its generous donation, we should be thanking the tax-payers that were forced to pay an additional 6% on their hotel bill for these events.
3
comments
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Would you take profits from McDonald's to subsidize White Castle? What about from the Bellagio to subsidize the Golden Nugget in downtown Las Vegas? Apparently the Illinois legislature would, and has done something very similar: it is requiring that Illinois most profitable Casinos give parts of their profits to subsidize the state's horse racing industry. Illinois' Supreme Court agrees, stating that "casino gambling has hurt horse racing revenue in the past two decades". The question I would want to ask is "So what?".
There are few things more un-American than punishing people for their success over the competition. What the government is doing here is essentially guaranteeing the privilege of certain companies, of their choosing of course, to profitability at the expense of the competition. The bill, which was signed in May of 2006, was described by Gov. Blagojevich:“These bills will help protect the jobs of thousands of hardworking people who depend on the horse racing industry for their livelihood. They will also create a more level playing field that will allow the horse racing industry to remain competitive in Illinois,” said Governor Blagojevich.
I don't understand how punishing those who are successful levels the playing field, it simply tilts it in favor of the failures.
She swallowed a spider to catch the fly...
But here's the kicker: the reason the racetracks are unable to compete with casinos in Illinois, like they are in almost every other state with both forms of gambling, is because Illinois wont allow them to have slot machines. The Illinois Horse Racing Strategic Council offered this as an alternative to the burden placed on casinos, but it was rejected. If the real concern was to allow the horse racing industry to thrive as an economic booster for the state, then why choke them with one hand while feeding them with the other?
This is yet another example of the government abusing their power to solve problems they created to begin with. In not allowing Illinois racetracks to have slot machines, the government ensured that they would not be able to compete with other gambling establishments in the state. To solve the problem they created through this restriction, they're now punishing casinos (but only the most successful ones).
There was an old lady who swallowed a horse. She's dead, of course.
When hearing stories like this, I can't help but think of the old nursery rhyme: She swallowed the Spider to catch the fly, I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
1 comments
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Will McCain pick an ultra-conservative governor half his age to be his VP? Now that we know who the presidential candidates are, I thought I'd focus on learning a bit more about the possible VP Candidates, starting with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Jindal is the American born son of Indian immigrants. He's had a fairly successful career in politics, including being a Congressman and Governor of Louisiana, and he's barely 37 years old. So what are his policies and what would Gov. Jindal bring to the table for the McCain campaign in November?
For starters, Jindal would help bring the ultra-conservative right wing of the Republican party back to John McCain, who is often accused of being too liberal by this constituency. Gov. Jindal might be able to help fix all that. While McCain gets a rating of 66% from the National Right to Life Committee, a pro-life lobbying organization, Gov. Jindal scores a perfect 100%. On many of the issues McCain is shady on, Jindal is willing to tout the standard party line: Pro-guns, Pro-Life, against flag burning, in favor of making the patriot act permanent, against gay rights, tax reform, and others. He has the view that Intelligent design should be taught in public schools schools. His positions on these issues has ultra-conservatives chomping at the bit to get him on the ballot, with incredibly positive reviews from Americans for Tax Reform, the Catholic League, the Christian Coalition, and even Rush Limbaugh who called him "The next Ronald Reagan".
I seriously doubt that Gov. Jindal would be the next Reagan, but the comment does show how enamored conservatives have become with Bobby Jindal. It seems to me that if he doesn't get this nomination, he's on the fast track to becoming the Republican Obama, going from virtually unknown to national political superstar in only a few years. I don't agree with Jindal on many of his stances, but after seeing some clips of him, he does seem to share that Obama charm, and he has quite a resumé, most notably including the reform of Louisiana's Medicare system.
Some people worry that Jindal's lack of Federal experience will undermine the claims made by McCain about Obama's unpreparedness. Other's seem to believe that his youth will help ease the concerns about McCain's age. For me, it is a question of whether his ideas and experience in reducing the size of government and the corruption within it, which he has had some success with in Louisiana, is enough to make me forget that he is about as socially conservative as one can get. In my experience, albeit limited, is that regardless of political rhetoric the size and scope of government is going to increase, not the opposite. This was true even with Reagan who is lauded for being a small government advocate, yet still increased the size of government by 60%. If not even Reagan could do it as President, I wonder if Jindal would have any effect from the VP's office. So are promises of smaller government, which probably can't be delivered, worth promises of less civil liberties? On the other hand, having Jindal in the White House might help lead to alternatives in the National health care debate that don't include a complete socialization of our health systems.
Will Jindal be chosen? It seems likely right now that he will. He's been actively campaigning for McCain and there hasn't been much effort to quell the rumors of his selection. His selection would probably be a small victory for economic freedom, and a huge blow to civil liberties should he make it to the White House.
8
comments
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
The loooooooong primary season is finally over. Today Obama is guaranteed to reach the number of Delegates and Superdelegates needed in order to receive his party's nomination. He will be the first African-American nominee for President of the United States from any "major" party. So what's in store for us in the up-comming months as Obama and McCain battle it out?
First off, we should be hearing lots of claims about who will be the VP candidate for both parties. There are so many rumors about the Obama-Clinton dream ticket, but I can't see it happening. Hillary is going to have to do a lot of work to backpedal after all the negative comments she had about Obama in order to help him win the Presidency, and this might make her a liability. I can see the phrase "His own candidate for VP said he was ..." being uttered over and over, with small room for rebuttal. This would be an easy target for McCain's campaign. While many Clinton supporters have said they wouldn't vote for Obama, I doubt most will follow through when they're presented the option in November. Would she jump on the chance? Probably. Will she be offered it? I doubt it. The Obama campaign would probably benefit more from having a less known VP candidate, like Bill Richardson, or a less vocal one like John Edwards, than they would with Hillary because they wouldn't have to cope with the baggage of such a hard fought primary.
In the national election Obama is going to have an advantage over McCain, albeit a small one. With the current state of the economy, and no signs of improvement, I would side more with the candidate of "change" than one of "experience". McCain is trying hard to prove that "experience" doesn't equal more of the same policies, but for most voters I think that they're going to want as big of a change from George W. Bush as possible, and McCain doesn't offer that. McCain is going to continue to hammer away at Obama's lack of experience, and accuse him of bad judgment in international affairs. While McCain has a valid point about giving people like Amedinajhad a global stage being a bad idea, most people are saying they prefer the idea of trying diplomacy before we get into another war. So while McCain keeps saying "he's wrong" people keep saying "I agree with him", and there's no way this is helping Sen. McCain.
While I still haven't decided how I'm going to vote, I predict that Obama will be the next President of the United States. I think the election is stacked against the Republicans and McCain, there's too many people angry at the Republicans because of the perceived failings of Bush. I don't buy the rhetoric that McCain will be a third term, I think his voting record in the Senate, where he often votes against the party, proves that, but I think it will be a very strong argument in the minds of many Americans that have felt like the government has let them down in the past 4 years. At the end of the day my decision will be made on the basis of what I believe will lead to more liberty in my lifetime, be it voting for Obama, McCain, or maybe even Bob Barr. I will be looking more in depth into the two candidates in the weeks to come as I form my decision, so stay tuned.
8
comments
Monday, June 02, 2008
When Sen. Ted Kennedy says that he wants working families to receive the same level of health care coverage as "member's of Congress provide for themselves", does that include and-picking the best doctors in the nation? That's what Sen. Kennedy did today after his recent diagnosis with malignant brain tumor two weeks ago. According to the Boston Globe, "Kennedy and his family conferred with a constellation of top national cancer specialists" and chose Duke University's Dr. Allan H. Friedman. While Sen. Kennedy is recovering from his successful surgery, I have to wonder about the kind of treatment he would be able to receive under socialized medicine.
In the UK, who has had socialized medicine in some form for 60 years, the average wait time for a CT Scan would be about two and a half weeks. For a MRI, it's 7 1/2 weeks. In Canada the wait times average more than 4 weeks for a CT Scan. So, two of the countries that are often lauded for their "public health care", it would take from 2 weeks to a month to get a CT Scan to diagnose a Glioma. In contrast, a listing of Chicago area imaging services (MRI, CT, Ultrasound, etc) shows most businesses making claims of no more than 48 hours to get your appointment. This is just for one of the first steps in diagnosis of the tumor. The Fraser Institute reports average wait times of 18 weeks in Canada for "non-emergency" surgery. Sen. Kennedy waited less than two weeks.
While this is just one portion of the entire debate, it's easy to see that perhaps the ideal of "health care for all" is not as great as it sounds. Although almost 16% of American's lack health coverage, the average American is waiting 1/14th of the wait time of the average Canadian, where everyone is covered. It is because of our lack of a publicly funded health care system that we have this much quicker response, not despite it. For the vast majority of Americans that are covered by health care providers, we can already enjoy much the same level of service that Sen. Kennedy does. While we probably lack the resources to pick the best doctors in the country like Ted did, we still get a much higher level of service than our neighbors to the north, who deal with many hardships in trying to get services that we can take advantage of because they are practically forced to use the government's system.
While I mostly oppose government entitlement programs, such as one that would give health care access to the 16% of the population that lacks it, I can understand why people consider this to be a "basic need". However, I would be much more comfortable with a plan that helped those people get access to a private insurer, rather than forcing the entire country into a public one. One of the things that makes our health care, and our country for that matter, so great is the abundance of competition and the freedom of choice. When the government gets involved in health care, as it happens when it gets involved in anything, the available choices are likely to decrease. The government will inevitably be forced to cut the quality of health care that the top 10% are receiving in order to subsidize the quality that the lowest 16% receive. It also brings weight to the liberty-crushing argument that if the government is "paying" for your health care, then the government has the authority to force you to live a more healthy life.
I believe in the power of money as a great equalizer. It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, or what you look like; if you have money, you can get service. A free economy provides ample opportunities for people to get more money, be it through loans, charities, working harder or smarter, etc. By taking things like health care out of the realm of money, the only currency available to improve the quality of your services received is clout. You can't get a clout loan, or a clout job. You can't wash cars in parking lots with your church group to gain more clout. This means that people like Senator Kennedy will continue getting the best services in the country, while the people at the bottom edge of the clout spectrum, which I bet are the same who are uninsured now, will continue to get the worst.
5
comments
Friday, May 30, 2008
If you've been reading and enjoying the blog, I have a few things to ask of you.
Leave comments! Even if its just a comment on this thread saying hello, let me know you're out there. There's nothing more encouraging than knowing people are out there reading what I write. Let me know what you think of different pieces, when I get it right, let me know, when I miss the point entirely, definitely let me know. I would like this blog to continually improve, and one of the best ways to do that is by hearing from you!
Give me your story ideas. If you hear about something interesting, and you want to hear my take on it, send me an e-mail, or contact me though AIM:cyberkrack. I'm always looking for new ideas and topics to write about, so please give me your thoughts
Share this blog with others. If you're enjoying what you're reading, please help spread the word about this blog to your friends, family, co-workers, or even by screaming the info on street corners! Anything you can do to get the word out about the blog is great. The goal is to have 3000 visitors a month by the end of august, and I need as much help as I can get to reach that goal.
Thanks for your help,
Ricky
0
comments
In an update to my very first post here at FaBA, the Texas Supreme Court has ordered state officials in Texas to return the more than 400 children to their families starting next week. The Judge asserted that Child Protective services "failed to show an immediate danger to nearly all the children swept up from the ranch", which is pretty much exactly the argument I made here. Kudos to Texas, and hopefully now they can focus on persecuting those who are guilty of crimes, instead of the dozens who aren't.
Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary for the Bush administration, published a book called What Happened about his experience in the White House. McClellan has a scathing review of the Bush presidency, and accuses the President and his staff of many things including dishonesty and propaganda about the Iraq war. The reaction has been obvious: Ad Hominem attacks from everywhere, and succinct denial of everything in the book. The Fox News Channel coverage of the book is as dismissing as possible, while other Networks are talking to the man and asking difficult questions like "Are you a hypocrite?" because of his statements while working in the whitehouse about other "Tell-all" books.
Brazilian officials have released photographs taken from an airplane of an isolated tribe living in the jungles near Peru, almost completely unconnected to modern civilization. This is one of approximately two dozen such tribes that are being threatened by illegal logging and the general encroachment of civilization. I find it amazingly interesting that tribes like this still exist in our day, that are so disconnected from modernity that they were firing arrows at the airplane taking the picture.
The employees at Caterpillar who are unionized under United Auto Workers are protesting a decision by the Caterpillar company to make all of its properties 100% smoke free. The move was made by the company after the smoking ban was put in place in Illinois, where most of its factories reside. The company claims that the policy is in place to "ensure that everyone who works on or visits Caterpillar property has access to the healthiest and safest work environment possible". It appears that the employees were perfectly happy being unhealthy, and that they would prefer if the company stayed out of their business. The UAW has stated that there will not be a strike over the policy, but that it will definitely be discussed at their next negotiation meeting.
1 comments
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Michelle Malkin, conservative blogger and commentator, is declaring a Jihad against scarves. The AP reports that Dunkin' Donuts pulled an online ad featuring celebrity Chef Rachael Ray because of Ms. Malkin's complaint that the scarf resembled a Keffiyeh, which she describes as "Hate Couture". The company responded by pulling the ad and apologizing.
I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. Malkin seems to be dedicating a bit of time to this issue, and on her website she has a page dedicated to shaming celebrities wearing these Keffiyeh's. In some cases it seems justified, such as with Ricky Martin incident, where he was found with one inscribed with the words "Jerusalem is Ours" written in Arabic. It is not a big leap to say that this particular case is referring to the rallying cry of many terrorist organizations, as Ms. Malkin claims. What really irks me about this entire situation, is not that she's attacking people like Martin, who ignorantly display slogan's they probably didn't understand. I have taken up the same issue with people wearing Ché shirts in the past. What bothers me is not that she would take issue with these symbols of hate, which she would be correct in doing, but that she would go out of her way to mis-categorize and convert a traditional Arabic headpiece, into a symbol of terrorist support. I can't think of a clearer example of someone's prejudice and bigotry finding fire where there is no smoke. The logic that leads to the conclusion that Malkin comes to can only look something like:
1. Some terrorists wear Keffiyeh's.
2. Rachel Ray wore a Keffiyeh
_____
Thus, Rachel Ray supports terrorists.
which is akin to claiming that anyone with an Asian symbol tattoo, must be a supporter of the Triads. What's next, is she going to accuse algebra teachers of being terrorist supporters? Certain symbols do have meanings, and to and it is important that people understand them because what to you might be a "Cool symbol" to others might be an endorsement of genocide, or hate. One of the wonderful things about freedom of speech is that it allows us to call people out who are knowingly, as is usually the case with swastikas for example, or unknowingly, as is probably the case with Ricky Martin, using these symbols to further messages that we find distasteful. But with the Dunkin' Donuts example it's simply not the case. The case is that Malkin is manufacturing controversy where none exists, most likely to try and find out how much power her pulpit holds.
The immediate submission of Dunkin' Donuts to this bullying is just saddening. If the keffiyeh had hidden messages supporting terrorists like Ricky Martin's did it would be one thing, just as if she had been wearing an armband with a swastika, but in it's current state the only thing that Dunkin' Donuts was guilty of was of a cosmopolitan fashion sense. If the company wants to take an active stance on national political issues, like it has with illegal immigration, they have just missed an excellent opportunity to say "we do not agree with the fear-mongers' suggestion that the use of Arabic fashion implies a support for terrorist extremists".
1 comments
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
On Memorial day Obama retold a family anecdote, about his uncle coming back from World War II after being one of the first troops in Auschwitz. He told this to a small group of Veterans he was meeting with in Las Cruces. Aparently, the uncle was actually his Mother's uncle, Obama's great-uncle, and the camp was Buchenwald not Aushwitz. This wasn't in a debate, or even a major speech. From the video, it doesn't even seem like he's speaking to more than a dozen people, but it was taken as an opportunity to call him a liar:
"Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief,"
said an RNC spokesman.
On Politico.com, we have an entire article dedicated to attacking Obama's possible health because, even though his physician says he's in good health, he did smoke cigarettes up until last year. Apparently this is also a crime against the American people, and something that we should all be concerned with.
With McCain, there seems to be more discussion than is warranted on his age. He's the oldest man to ever run for President, and a website titled Things younger than McCain is a particularly entertaining way to make that point. This is a joke that he himself has brought up (see SNL clips). It's funny, and to a certain extent it is relevant, as his age increases the chances that he'll have health issues while in power, but is it really what we should be focusing on?
It's unreasonable to expect the voters to be completely informed on every "issue" and the candidates stance on it. Most people are not going to dedicate a significant portion of their day to compare and analyze the specifics of the various policies. When people are dedicating 15 or 30 minutes of their day to catching up with the news about the campaign, wasting 5 of it with this kind of irrelevant nonsense is borderline irresponsible, and it helps push the election cycle further from a discussion of the merits of policy alternatives, and more towards American Idol: Politics Edition. Our acceptance of this kind of nonsense as news disempowers us as voters, as the campaigns focus less on coming up with better policy, and more on which color ties to use.
2
comments
Monday, May 26, 2008
While most of the news is focusing on Memorial Day, I have been listening to archives of one of the better "talk-radio" format podcasts that I've found, Free Talk Live. The show got a call from a disabled veteran who told a "horror story" about his latest purchase at Best Buy, which ended up with the General Manager of the store allegedly telling him that "If we went out of our way to make all of our customers happy, we'd go out of business". If this manager actually takes this stance, he will surely be out of a job soon; either because he gets fired, or because this sort of policy will lead Best Buy down the same road that Sears, Montgomery Ward, and others have gone through. In their failure to adjust to a business world with seemingly infinite competitors all willing to go a little further to serve their clients, their business would dwindle down to nothing.
Certain segments of the corporate world have not had to make these adjustments, because they enjoy government imposed monopolies and competition limitless. In Mexico many of the essential services were, and some still are, run by means of a Government enforced monopoly. As is the case with most government enforced monopolies, they had the attitude of "you'll take what we give you and you'll like it". Customer service was virtually non-existent, because it didn't need to be. You either payed Telmex, or you didn't have phone service. This type of egregious abuse of consumers can only be accomplished with the help of the government, because without its intervention entrepreneurs would swiftly move in to fill the service gap created.
The media & entertainment industry in this country enjoyed to a certain extent the same sort of government enforced monopoly. You had to purchase the rights to the airwaves, be it radio or television, and the steep price meant only the largest of companies could compete. These companies didn't suffer the big blow of internet competition, because the bandwidth wasn't really available to stream their content in real-time, so they continued with the "You'll take what we give you" mindset.
However, as bandwidth started increasing, so did internet radio stations and on demand video streams. Any one of us can now get radio stations that are extremely specialized to our own personal tastes, and watch exactly the show we want, when we want to watch it. The case of the radio is particularly interesting, because past copyright laws allowed these net radio station to deal directly with artists, many of whom are not on "major labels" and work out agreements that would allow them to broadcast their music to small specialized groups for very low costs. It benefits the artists, who are unlikely to get played on traditional radio; it benefits the net radio stations, who can offer a huge variety of content to their listeners; and it benefits the listeners, who can now choose from huge variety of music, instead of whatever the top 40 is.
What is shocking, or maybe not so shocking, is that these titans of the radio industry instead of realizing that this is the trend of the future, and figuring out how to use their extreme resources (when compared to most net-radio businesses) to find a way to make it even better for the listeners, are doing everything they can to shut down these new net radio stations, by lobbying to increase the amounts of royalties these stations have to pay by between 300% and 1200%, according to Savenetradio.org, an organization created by net radio companies trying to fight the changes that would put them out of business, and force consumers back to the same stale top 40.
It astounds me the lengths that these companies are willing to go to to avoid change, and to avoid giving their customers better service. I'm pretty sure that whatever budget these companies have to fight change, far exceeds the budgets that the change-makers have for operation of their organizations. NBC's is one of the Television broadcasters that has embraced change, showing most of its major shows for free, in high quality, streaming on the internet. It shows what these large companies could do to offer their customers a legal alternative, that ends up being much better than the illegal choice. Clearchannel et. al could probably offer thousands of customized radio-stations, with a music catalogs extending far beyond what something like Soma.FM could have, and probably in better quality, but instead they choose to stick to their old ways, and expect that the government will do what it's always done, and protect their business.
They need to learn the new mantra of the internet age: "If we don't go our of our way to make each customer happy, we'll go out of business".
7
comments
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Yesterday I made the claim that Hillary would be ahead in the popular vote if Michigan and Florida were added to the count. Turns out that's what she's saying, but not true. Something so small as the truth isn't going to get her down over, and over.
In order to get the numbers that Sen Clinton's campaign is saying about the popular vote is only by including votes from Michigan and Florida (which don't count), and NOT including any of the caucuses (which DO include states where Obama won easily).
I admit that that I have been very harsh on Hillary in the past, but she constantly reminds me of the reasons people hate politics. When Clinton was ahead by a large margin, she was graceful, calm, and magnanimous. "Obama would make a great VP", she would imply condescendingly. She signed a pledge not to campaign in Florida and Michigan when there was no risk to do so, and so on.
As Obama slowly but surely started chipping away at her lead, she became vicious in her attacks (4am call, Rev. Wright), whiny (which is annoying), borderline racist (which is not fine),and has now resorted to full scale lying and underhanded tactics (which is just sad). The first job of a politician is to get elected, but Hillary's tactics for achieving this goal are more and more unpalatable.
If the campaign is supposed to be any indication of the way the candidates would act in office, I can see a strong comparison between the widespread criticisms of George Bush and the way she's running her campaign: Get what you want, at any cost.
2
comments
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
In the past two days Sen. Clinton has been doing more of what she's been doing for the past few weeks: whining a lot. On the heels of yet another irrelevant primary win in Kentucky, which of course Clinton claims as a huge victory that proves she should keep going, Clinton has begun aggressively campaigning for the votes of Michigan and Florida to be accepted into the primary election.
The reason these places weren't included to begin with, is because they went against party rules and changed their primaries to be the first in the country. They were warned that if they did so, their votes wouldn't be accepted, and the Dems followed through. All of the candidates, including Clinton, pledged not to campaign in that state.
So what has changed since then? Well, in Gallup polls done between August through September, around the dates they signed this pledge, Clinton led Obama by 47% to 25%. There was, in her mind, no risk in making this promise because she was the "inevitable" candidate. Boy was she wrong. Her new strategy, and her only hope of winning it seems, is to fiercely promote these states "right" to be represented in the primary. Now Clinton is comparing it to Bush V. Gore and calling the Florida and Michigan voters "disenfranchised". If accepted, Clinton would be ahead in the popular vote, and seems to believe she could make a stronger claim for the superdelegates to vote for her in the convention. She will of course forget to mention that Obama never campaigned in Florida or Michigan, like she did, and that Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
I for one can't get over the feeling that she's fighting dirty and it's confirming all my suspicions that she is out for power, in any way she can get it. The Democrats for those states made the decision to defy the party, and they made it knowing the consequences. The Candidates signed the pledge, and followed it. The fact that Clinton didn't ever consider the idea of losing, doesn't make it ok for her to go back on her word, and risk dividing the party even more. Her tactic now seems to be "win at any cost", and I can't imagine this will bring her any good will with the superdelegates, or in the general election.
For McCain's response to the whole thing, see this video of him on SNL.
5
comments
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Sen. Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, the particulars of which I'll spare you, but essentially odds are against him. It seems that most of the media outlets have started to eulogize him, focusing on his life, his legacy, and his "passing of the torch". Since Sen. Kennedy has been one of the greatest supporters of Obama, everyone with a left-of-center political bent is rushing to say that Obama is the next member of the "Kennedy Dynasty".
While I am too young to have lived through the heyday of the Kennedy years, JFK and Bobby Kennedy, I still grew up with the idea of Kennedy. I call it the 'Idea of Kennedy' because I very much doubt that it paints the whole picture of them, and for all I know is not even historically accurate.
Whether it's true or not is unimportant, but the idea of Kennedy is roughly as follows:
-A Kennedy is a racial groundbreaker, bringing together Blacks and Whites in times of extreme racial tension.
-A Kennedy is an incredibly charismatic orator, giving goosebumps to even his fiercest critics when they hear him speak.
-A Kennedy is the American Dream incarnate, the children of immigrants that went from poverty to de-facto American Royalty in just a few generations.
-A Kennedy knows how to party and relax, it's almost expected of them, so when they do you can't get mad, you just shrug and say "Oh, that's our Kennedy!" as if in a 1950's sitcom.
These are the images conjured in my mind when I think of what it means to be 'a Kennedy'. This is also why every left-leaning pundit in the country will be rushing forward in the next few days to say that Ted Kennedy, the last of the REAL Kennedys, has "Passed the Torch" to Barrack Obama. They want to make sure that when you think of Barrack Obama, you think of the Idea of Kennedy, and get that same warm and fuzzy feeling everyone gets while talking about JFK. They also seem to be quick to point out, that Ted never chose to pass that torch to Bill Clinton, who has been the only Democrat in the Whitehouse in 25 years. Obama is the next Kennedy, not Hillary.
However, it's also important to remember the other than the Idea of Kennedy, there's much to be said about the reality of Ted Kennedy. He's been in the Senate for nearly 50 years, which clearly doesn't speak to the idea of groundbreaking change in Washington that Obamaniacs chant. He's about as left-wing as a Democrat Senator can be, consistently voting for bigger government projects, increasing the minimum wage, strong supporter of gay rights and immigrant rights, and all other things left-of-center. While no one can doubt his Charisma, the Chappaquiddick incident, might be cause for questioning his integrity.
While it's difficult to lump everything he's done into possitive or negative, I think the Obama campaign might be a bit too hasty in accepting the torch its being passed. For many of the undecided voters who lean towards the Republicans but are considering Obama, or the white, poor, uneducated people that Clinton is so vocal in claiming would never vote for him, an endorsement from Ted Kennedy, if presented in the right light, could be the kiss of death for the Illinois Senator. I don't think it would take much more than listing the most controversial of Kennedy's votes and implying Obama would do the same as president to turn many voters away.
But for now, at least the Obama campaign is taking a gamble that the Idea of Kennedy will be more powerful than the reality of Ted.
6
comments
Monday, May 19, 2008
It seems I can't go anywhere on the internet recently without hearing about Bob Barr, who is running for the Libertarian Party nomination. Everywhere you look, from left to right, everyone has something to say about Bob Barr.
While Barr himself has done very little since his announcement, mostly some nagging at now-irrelevant Gov. Huckabee, everyone is scrambling to figure out what effect he will have on the general election. The Weekly Standard's bloggers think he "seems likely to siphon votes from Obama, not McCain". Over at the Daily Kos, blogger Steven R. makes a strong case for "Obamaniacs" to donate to Barr's campaign, in order to defeat McCain, after all, it's what some Republicans did with Nader.
So who's right? Well polls seem to agree with the Barr-for-Obama camp. The Rasmussen Reports, which has daily poll results on the Presidential election, finds that if the election were held today with only Obama and McCain on the ballot, McCain would win by 45% to 44%. However, when you toss in Bob Barr (and Ralph Nader, since he's become inevitable it seems), the results look much different:
In a four-way race, Obama earns 42% of the vote, McCain 38%, Bob Barr 6% and Ralph Nader 4%. Given those options, 11% were undecided.
While this is all likely to change, and I'd be surprised if any third party got more than 3% of the vote or so, it does show an interesting trend. Obama voters will probably vote for Obama regardless of what the other options are, where McCain loses quite a few votes to Bob Barr.
The effect of Bob Barr is likely to diminish in the coming months as more people get to know him and the specifics of what a vote for Bob Barr stands for. Rasmussen Reports states that "Most voters don’t know enough about Barr to have an opinion of him", and I feel this is more likely to benefit Barr than hurt him. What I think it does show is that the Republicans have alienated a lot of voters that would usually not even consider voting for any other party, either through their dislike of the Bush Presidency, or because, as in my case, it seems difficult to see any evidence that they're actually the same organization that gave us Reagan, Goldwater, and even Newt Gingrich. The question is, will McCain be willing to make concessions to this voting bloc in an effort to stop Barr from being a spoiler, or will he continue with the de-facto policy of dismissing "third-party voters" as lunatics that should be ignored?
7
comments
Friday, May 16, 2008
In an attempt to share some of the spotlight with the Democrats, McCain gave a sort of "Back to the Future" speech where he looked forward the the changes his Presidency would like to accomplish by 2013. I will try to give this some more in depth analysis soon, but it seems to be at least a novel idea. Politicians usually try to prevent giving out any specific goals or ideas for fear that it would turn away some of their potential voters, and its refreshing to hear someone outline something a bit more tangible than "improve the economy" or "get more jobs". Among the things listed were a reduced military presence in Iraq by 2013, a tax-reform and potential "flat-tax", as well as others. Stay tuned for more info on the speech and on McCain next week.
The Catholic Church announced that it is OK for Catholics to believe in aliens. To summarily dismiss the possibility would be to "set limits on the creative liberty of God." according to Rev. Jose Funes, who is the director of the Vatican Observatory. I agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and I believe that too often people love to set their limits on God (hello, creationists!), I wonder if the official permission of the Vatican was needed. Were there really that many Catholics afraid to believe in the possibility of extraterrestrials because it might be a sin?
President Bush, trying to fulfill as many cliché's as possible before his Presidency ends, is on his official peace-in-the-middle-east tour. Well, sorta. The President is in Israel for the 60th anniversary of the country's independence, and during his visit he hopes, as always, to promote the idea of peace. While giving a speech, it seems that he might have likened Sen. Obama to those that would try to appease Hitler. Although he never mentioned Obama, or Hitler for that matter, it was implied that he meant both. Or did some people just interpret it that way? Either way, the President it getting accused of taking advantage of Israel's independence celebrations in order to play partisan politics.
On the heels of the Myanmar cyclone disaster, China had a massive earthquake from which it is still recovering. As of today the Chinese were still finding survivors in the rubble. The consensus is that the Chinese government is dealing with the disaster incredibly well. It should be interesting to see what sort of discussion comes of this in the future, comparing the Chinese response to the American response during Katrina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
