I'm sorry I haven't posted in two weeks. Real life has been crazy, and as a result, I've been exhausted most of the time. Also, frankly, I haven't had all that much to say. I have lurked at some of your websites, even pitched in a comment or two, but I've basically put myself on light blog duty. If I haven't commented on your sites recently, that's in no way any indication of a lessening of my opinion of you; I just haven't had anything new, interesting, or bizarre to add. This brings to mind the question of what I have thought as I've been looking at the goings on of the world lately, so I'll share a few thoughts.
President Bush: Although he was more than a bit late, I was glad to hear him talking so seriously about alternative fuels and flex-fuel vehicles, though I wish he would've at least mentioned biodiesel and basic research into batteries to extend the range of hybrid vehicles. Furthermore, I applaud his decision to stop adding to the strategic petroleum reserves, as that measure only served to further inflate the already extreme gas prices. He's even called for an investigation of the oil companies' prices and their profits. Perhaps if he'd've said something similar, oh, say five years ago and actually listen to his generals and admirals about Iraq and hire a Secretary of Defense who would listen to his generals and admirals, his approval rating wouldn't be quite so far in the crapper.
Congress: What. The. Fuck!!! A $100 credit to help defray energy costs is the latest proposal, but is tied to a bill that would authorize drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. I'll ignore the second issue for just a moment, and tackle the $100 credit proposal. Nevermind the fact that this would just add to our extreme national debt, a debt that must get under control for our nation's present and future, and that of our descendants, this is just stupid. Assuming gas prices of $3.00 a gallon, and a fuel tank of 11 gallons, that $100 would be three tanks of gas, not even a month's worth, for a good number of people. Going into the ANWR aspect of the debate, that would be akin to putting a bandage on a leg with a compound fracture. Not only would it take years to accomplish, it would also reduce the sense of urgency among some movers and shakers about switching to alternative fuels, thereby hindering the aim of achieving energy independence. At least the starting point for much of the basic research that will be necessary is here, but more must be done.
Iran: Iran is a net exporter of gasoline, but they're talking about enriching their own uranium. For over a generation, Iran has been a rogue nation and a sponsor of terrorism worldwide, and that was even true (though to a lesser extent) with their former, more moderate government. Their current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, scares the everlasting hell out of me, and I have absolutely no doubts about the accuracy of acting Israeli Prime Minister Ohlmert's comments about Mr. Ahmadinejad's character. What an ugly mess...
In summary, if things don't change very soon, I may vote majority Democrat for the first time ever this coming November, though it's always been a bit of a close thing. It will all depend on the ideas presented by the candidates for the various offices and their character. To the Democrats who occasionally visit, this does not mean I'm becoming one of you. The strictures of membership in any political party really chafe, and I do not want to find myself tied to any leader out of a sense of loyalty to the party or the individual. Ultimately, our elected leaders are our employees, and as such, we should view their performance, their intentions once in office, and integrity as being of paramount importance, and if a leader in any party is a shit and proves himself or herself unfit to lead, get him or her out. I've seen party loyalists support candidates even they admitted were fairly detestable, and that's disgusting. All that said, enjoy the new name I've given my blog.
Vote for America's future. Vote Green.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Secretary Rumsfeld, it's time to call it a night and go home.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've already heard about the six retired generals who have called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Some may say seven, but I'm not counting General Wesley Clark, since frankly, he doesn't matter, having run for the opposition party's candidacy and has at least the perception of taint or opportunism. Furthermore, it's been a long time since he was a general. No, of far more interest is the three former field commanders who have called for Secretary Rumsfeld to step down. His inability to effectively fulfill the duties of his position have been obvious for quite some time now, but these six retired generals cast a different light on the problems in the United States Department of Defense. I know I'm still somewhat young, but I have never seen the like in my lifetime, and after speaking with others, I doubt this has precedent in the history of the United States. President Bush has, predictably, shown his support for someone who has only brought him grief and embarassment. In the instances where he has given sound advice, he has executed his ideas in a manner more suitable for a business than a military, to the grief of soldiers and their families. The time has come for Secretary Rumsfeld to step aside and allow someone far more qualified to take his place. He has more than overstayed his welcome.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Alabama state law is weird.
I mention this because of something I didn't know until earlier today. The coastal counties of Alabama are minus one elected sheriff after former Mobile County Sheriff Jack Tillman pled guilty to misdemeanor counts of perjury and an ethics violation as part of a plea agreement that kept him out of prison and removed him from office mere months before he would have lost his seat anyway. I think in this sort of instance, the most important thing is to get such an individual out of office, so I don't begrudge him his short suspended sentence and $13,000 fine. The important thing is that he's out, and the people of Mobile County can move forward. This is unfortunate, but far from abnormal except insofar as he's but one of many elected officals to be removed from office or, in one instance, be in the process of being impeached (for buying over $9,000 in Mardi Gras beads using school vending machine money) in Mobile and Baldwin Counties in the last year or two. That said, I won't bore you with those details. No, what is weird is the legal selection process for an interim sheriff.
According to Alabama state law, should the sheriff be unable to complete his or her full elected term, his responsibilities are delegated to the county coroner. Should there be a vacancy in the office of county coroner, the County Probate Judge may appoint a "special coroner" to fulfill the duties of the county coroner until the next election. In 1987, the voters of Mobile County, AL, decided to replace the county coroner with an appointed medical examiner, hence, creating an automatic vacancy in that position, a vacancy that was unnoticed and unlamented until now. At 1 PM Central Daylight Time, that's exactly what occurred when Dale Evans, Sr., a former agent with the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Customs Service, was sworn in as the "special coroner" of Mobile County, thereby becoming the interim sheriff.
I wonder what odd laws and rules of succession are lurking on the books in other states, just waiting for the wrong person to fuck up...
According to Alabama state law, should the sheriff be unable to complete his or her full elected term, his responsibilities are delegated to the county coroner. Should there be a vacancy in the office of county coroner, the County Probate Judge may appoint a "special coroner" to fulfill the duties of the county coroner until the next election. In 1987, the voters of Mobile County, AL, decided to replace the county coroner with an appointed medical examiner, hence, creating an automatic vacancy in that position, a vacancy that was unnoticed and unlamented until now. At 1 PM Central Daylight Time, that's exactly what occurred when Dale Evans, Sr., a former agent with the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Customs Service, was sworn in as the "special coroner" of Mobile County, thereby becoming the interim sheriff.
I wonder what odd laws and rules of succession are lurking on the books in other states, just waiting for the wrong person to fuck up...
Monday, April 10, 2006
Congresswoman McKinney gets the rare, ahem, "honor" of a double-post.
She joins such notables as Roy Moore, Ann Coulter, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (yeah, right, as if PeTA even knows the meaning of "ethics, let alone exercises any), President Bush, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, and France. She becomes only the second individual Democrat to achieve the distinction of annoying me enough to get me to rant about her twice or more, though I'm surprised I haven't double-ranted Tom Cruise. That may simply be a result of my knowledge of his insanity and the fact that even thinking about the rat-bastard gets my blood pressure up dangerously high.
I would like to thank Sheryl for inspiring me to visit the, ahem, esteemed Congresswoman's website to see what she thinks, if anything. Since I wasn't expecting much more than bullshit, I wasn't disappointed. You may notice her quote of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 (I'll ignore Clause 2 since it only precludes members of Congress from holding another government office simultaneously) of the Constitution of the United States of America. I find it particularly odd in light of what happened, but I'll get to that later. First, I'll join her in quoting that particular section of the highest law of the land, and since I'm feeling particularly frisky, I think I'll do something poetic, such as linking to the Constitution of the United States of America by way of the website of the body to which she belongs, the United States House of Representatives.
" The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (See Note 6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Not that it matters, the text of Note 6 is as follows: "This Clause has been affected by amendment XXVII."
Let's dissect this rather shabby defense of her actions, the latest in a string of desperate measures undertaken by Congresswoman McKinney. The only sentence that really matters here is the second one. "And for any speech or debate in either HOuse, they shall not be questioned in any other place." Utterly irrelevant, since, while she said plenty on the House floor, she also said plenty in the news media, and the heart of this issue has very little to do with words and everything to do with chucking a cell phone at a cop.
Now for the main event, the first half of the second sentence: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same..." First, the incident did not occur as she was actually on the House floor, but rather as she was entering an office building, so the subclause about "during their attendance at the session of their respective houses" is of questionable relevance and frankly doesn't pass the smell test. Second, and more importantly, they shall in all cases be priviledged from arrest, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Of the three, the last is the most certain, and the first does not apply in this case. The Constitution of the United States of America clearly outlines the definition of treason, and being an ass isn't even close. However, assaulting a police officer is certainly a breach of the peace and may qualify as a felony at some point in the future; however, that decision is in the hands of the Department of Justice. She was attempting to gain entry into one of the most important buildings in our nation's government without wearing the proper identification; in this case, a pin. Three times she attempted to get around the magnetometer, and on the third attempt, she hit a police officer in the chest with a cell phone. I'm more than certain that there are many guests of the state who are in their prison cells because they hit a cop, or that such a charge led to an extension of their stay.
Ms. McKinney, your defense is weak, and your ignorance and contempt for the rule of law is encyclopedic. Even after this incident, a few mea culpas, and this incident dies a quick death, but much like Martha Stewart, you weren't that clever. This was never an issue of race, your shrill protestations notwithstanding. This was an issue of one person thinking the rules did not apply to themselves and hitting a cop when she found those beliefs were mistaken. In short, this was about hubris.
I would like to thank Sheryl for inspiring me to visit the, ahem, esteemed Congresswoman's website to see what she thinks, if anything. Since I wasn't expecting much more than bullshit, I wasn't disappointed. You may notice her quote of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 (I'll ignore Clause 2 since it only precludes members of Congress from holding another government office simultaneously) of the Constitution of the United States of America. I find it particularly odd in light of what happened, but I'll get to that later. First, I'll join her in quoting that particular section of the highest law of the land, and since I'm feeling particularly frisky, I think I'll do something poetic, such as linking to the Constitution of the United States of America by way of the website of the body to which she belongs, the United States House of Representatives.
" The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (See Note 6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Not that it matters, the text of Note 6 is as follows: "This Clause has been affected by amendment XXVII."
Let's dissect this rather shabby defense of her actions, the latest in a string of desperate measures undertaken by Congresswoman McKinney. The only sentence that really matters here is the second one. "And for any speech or debate in either HOuse, they shall not be questioned in any other place." Utterly irrelevant, since, while she said plenty on the House floor, she also said plenty in the news media, and the heart of this issue has very little to do with words and everything to do with chucking a cell phone at a cop.
Now for the main event, the first half of the second sentence: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same..." First, the incident did not occur as she was actually on the House floor, but rather as she was entering an office building, so the subclause about "during their attendance at the session of their respective houses" is of questionable relevance and frankly doesn't pass the smell test. Second, and more importantly, they shall in all cases be priviledged from arrest, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Of the three, the last is the most certain, and the first does not apply in this case. The Constitution of the United States of America clearly outlines the definition of treason, and being an ass isn't even close. However, assaulting a police officer is certainly a breach of the peace and may qualify as a felony at some point in the future; however, that decision is in the hands of the Department of Justice. She was attempting to gain entry into one of the most important buildings in our nation's government without wearing the proper identification; in this case, a pin. Three times she attempted to get around the magnetometer, and on the third attempt, she hit a police officer in the chest with a cell phone. I'm more than certain that there are many guests of the state who are in their prison cells because they hit a cop, or that such a charge led to an extension of their stay.
Ms. McKinney, your defense is weak, and your ignorance and contempt for the rule of law is encyclopedic. Even after this incident, a few mea culpas, and this incident dies a quick death, but much like Martha Stewart, you weren't that clever. This was never an issue of race, your shrill protestations notwithstanding. This was an issue of one person thinking the rules did not apply to themselves and hitting a cop when she found those beliefs were mistaken. In short, this was about hubris.
Monday, April 03, 2006
My contemplative mood is over. It is time once again for me to get ugly.
Do you, my few fans, love my polemics with as much hellfire and brimstone as a revival preacher but without the annoying preaching? Do you love it when I tear into someone? Then you'll be sorely disappointed. I'm feeling a bit snarkier today. :P Just kidding. Let the games begin!
Two weeks ago, I had no clue who Cynthia McKinney was. Now, over the last few days, I've learned from her own words and actions that she's a racist bitch who refuses to take responsibility for her actions. I watched her interview on CNN, and frankly, I pity the people she so inadequately represents. The Capitol Police's version is thus: She wasn't wearing her pin designating her as a member of Congress, she went around the metal detector, she refused three times to identify herself, then hit the officer in the chest with her cell phone. Her version is that she was being picked on because she was black. Bullshit. Complete, utter, and irrefutable bullshit. I've worked in jobs where I had to show some form of identification to get in the building unchallenged, and they were a damned site less important and in less important locations than an office building for the United States House of Representatives. Had she turned around any of those times and said to the officer something to the effect of (but more professional than) "Sorry, man, here's my badge," the situation is over. What she did after that would've been on her, but she wouldn't be under investigation for assaulting an officer. However, she chose to strike the man in the chest with a foreign object. Congresswoman McKinney, just remember, you can't spell "assault" without the word "ass", and you were being one. Personally, I hope that, whatever the outcome, all Congresspersons and all Senators, hell, all elected officials be required to go through those metal detectors and be screened just like the rest of us schlubs, and I hope that regulation is named the Cynthia McKinney rule in appreciation. Even should your career survive this ZsaZsa Gabor moment, I bet that would make you tremendously popular in the cafeteria. I bet all the cool Congresspersons will want to hang out with you and ask your opinion on important manners after you cost them even more and persistent headaches. Oh, and Congresswoman McKinney, one last thing: I love your new hair. It makes you look like a new woman.
Next, I would like to tear into Roy Moore... Just kidding. CBS has selected a new anchor for their nightly news show. They could've gone with Soledad O'Brien or any of literally hundreds of qualified people to take the reins of one of the most prestigious jobs in journalism to repair the damage left in Dan Rather's wake. So who did they choose? Someone who gets a flexible camera jammed up her ass every year on national television. Of course, I'm talking about none other than one of my least-favorite on-air personalities, Katie Couric. She has about as much cred as a real journalist as Vanilla Ice had as a rapper, and she's twice as annoying as Carrot Top. Talk about See B.S. But that's okay. I'm sure their dozen or so remaining loyal viewers will be happy to see that aging harpy drone on about the news, and the issues that matter to her, like herself, or Katie Couric, or Couric, Katie, or proper colon health. This just begs the question: Is Les Moonves trying to kill the news arm of CBS? If so, he did a bang-up job by signing that crone.
I'm not watching Fox News, as I find my blood pressure benefits from eliminating nighttime exposure to that network from the programming, so I have no clue what Bill O'Reilly has to say about either of these issues, and frankly, I don't care. I don't like Bill O'Reilly. While he is undoubtably intelligent, he masks this extraordinarily well by bullying guests with whom he disagrees and generally making an ass out of himself. Furthermore, he harps on about mistakes and indiscretions others have committed while refusing to discuss his own, though on the last point, I admit to being more than a bit relieved. After all, who really wants to hear the tapes of him poorly attempting to have phone sex with one of his female producers, a mistake for which he paid very dearly if the rumors are true? I'm glad she sued him for what was a very clear case of sexual harrassment, and I'm even gladder I didn't hear those tapes. His voice trying to be sexy... Can I safely assume that the rest of you are as disgusted by that mental imagery as I am? Ugh. But the issue is closed since it's about him; just ask him. Fucking useless hypocrite.
And on that note, I bid you all a good evening.
Two weeks ago, I had no clue who Cynthia McKinney was. Now, over the last few days, I've learned from her own words and actions that she's a racist bitch who refuses to take responsibility for her actions. I watched her interview on CNN, and frankly, I pity the people she so inadequately represents. The Capitol Police's version is thus: She wasn't wearing her pin designating her as a member of Congress, she went around the metal detector, she refused three times to identify herself, then hit the officer in the chest with her cell phone. Her version is that she was being picked on because she was black. Bullshit. Complete, utter, and irrefutable bullshit. I've worked in jobs where I had to show some form of identification to get in the building unchallenged, and they were a damned site less important and in less important locations than an office building for the United States House of Representatives. Had she turned around any of those times and said to the officer something to the effect of (but more professional than) "Sorry, man, here's my badge," the situation is over. What she did after that would've been on her, but she wouldn't be under investigation for assaulting an officer. However, she chose to strike the man in the chest with a foreign object. Congresswoman McKinney, just remember, you can't spell "assault" without the word "ass", and you were being one. Personally, I hope that, whatever the outcome, all Congresspersons and all Senators, hell, all elected officials be required to go through those metal detectors and be screened just like the rest of us schlubs, and I hope that regulation is named the Cynthia McKinney rule in appreciation. Even should your career survive this ZsaZsa Gabor moment, I bet that would make you tremendously popular in the cafeteria. I bet all the cool Congresspersons will want to hang out with you and ask your opinion on important manners after you cost them even more and persistent headaches. Oh, and Congresswoman McKinney, one last thing: I love your new hair. It makes you look like a new woman.
Next, I would like to tear into Roy Moore... Just kidding. CBS has selected a new anchor for their nightly news show. They could've gone with Soledad O'Brien or any of literally hundreds of qualified people to take the reins of one of the most prestigious jobs in journalism to repair the damage left in Dan Rather's wake. So who did they choose? Someone who gets a flexible camera jammed up her ass every year on national television. Of course, I'm talking about none other than one of my least-favorite on-air personalities, Katie Couric. She has about as much cred as a real journalist as Vanilla Ice had as a rapper, and she's twice as annoying as Carrot Top. Talk about See B.S. But that's okay. I'm sure their dozen or so remaining loyal viewers will be happy to see that aging harpy drone on about the news, and the issues that matter to her, like herself, or Katie Couric, or Couric, Katie, or proper colon health. This just begs the question: Is Les Moonves trying to kill the news arm of CBS? If so, he did a bang-up job by signing that crone.
I'm not watching Fox News, as I find my blood pressure benefits from eliminating nighttime exposure to that network from the programming, so I have no clue what Bill O'Reilly has to say about either of these issues, and frankly, I don't care. I don't like Bill O'Reilly. While he is undoubtably intelligent, he masks this extraordinarily well by bullying guests with whom he disagrees and generally making an ass out of himself. Furthermore, he harps on about mistakes and indiscretions others have committed while refusing to discuss his own, though on the last point, I admit to being more than a bit relieved. After all, who really wants to hear the tapes of him poorly attempting to have phone sex with one of his female producers, a mistake for which he paid very dearly if the rumors are true? I'm glad she sued him for what was a very clear case of sexual harrassment, and I'm even gladder I didn't hear those tapes. His voice trying to be sexy... Can I safely assume that the rest of you are as disgusted by that mental imagery as I am? Ugh. But the issue is closed since it's about him; just ask him. Fucking useless hypocrite.
And on that note, I bid you all a good evening.
Friday, March 31, 2006
In memory of a former friend...
I recently learned that someone I knew from high school died not too long ago. We used to be friends, hung out in some of the same circles, and he was one hell of a guy. He had wisdom I was too scarred to understand at the time, but years later, I understand what he meant. In those years, he went to school, got a wife and kids, and was generally successful. I, on the other hand, became a bit of a recluse and worked. I never allowed myself a chance to see the man he became, but by all accounts, he was still one hell of a guy, a great dad, and a good husband, and I would've been proud to know who he became, and it is with great shame that I admit that I didn't at least try to stay in touch. He died far too young, and had too much promise left unfulfilled. In his memory, I am posting a poem by John Donne.
"Death Be Not Proud" by John Donne
"Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not soe,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill mee;
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou'art slave to Fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie,' or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then they stroake; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more, Death thou shalt die."
My deepest condolences are with his family and friends.
"Death Be Not Proud" by John Donne
"Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not soe,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill mee;
From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.
Thou'art slave to Fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie,' or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then they stroake; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more, Death thou shalt die."
My deepest condolences are with his family and friends.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Roy Moore, Charlie Sheen, sit the FUCK down and shut the FUCK up.
I honestly don't know which one of these genetic mistakes is dumber: Roy Moore or Charlie Sheen. Charlie Sheen made a strong case for the crown with his recent announcement that he has his own 9/11 conspiracy theory. And just when people were starting to forget that he was a stupid motherfucker with a once-promising but now slowly dying career... Oh well, he made his choices, though with Martin Sheen as a father, that explains a small part of his idiocy, and I'm sure the booze and drugs didn't help.
Before I verbally rip Mr. Moore a new asshole, let's dissect Sheen's... "theory" seems such a grotesque misuse of that word for this extreme level of idiocy and implies thought, which Charlie Sheen has not actually proven capable of. If I'm understanding him correctly, he believes that hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses and billions of viewers all around the world were somehow conned by some Hollywood special-effects into thinking that what was really a number of controlled demolitions was really some fucking huge airplanes with a shitload of jet fuel that slammed into the main towers of the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. Yeah, I don't buy what Mr. Sheen is trying to sell either. First, Osama bin Laden tried to take out the WTC back in the early 1990s but only managed to take out some parking spaces and a very small number of victims. Second, this was a fanatically-determined enemy who had spent a large sum of money to execute their mission. Third, that many eyewitnesses on the ground are very nearly impossible to fool. Fourth, the WTC was one of the most financially-important complexes in one of the most financially-important cities in the world, and there's no way any person in power, Republican or Democrat, would want to see that much of their investments take the kind of hit that their demolition caused, a fact which would've been obvious to any halfway decent planner and which, in fact, was obvious to the masterminds of this attack. Fifth (and I think I need one after this), why would Republicans, of all people, want to harm the ability of the Department of Defense to function to that degree? Sixth, how exactly could the Pentagon have stopped a 747 that was aiming for them with the stuff they had available at the time? Years ago, I read in Executive Orders by Tom Clancy an analogy that applies in this case, and it was something along the order of trying to stop an out-of-control 18-wheeler by shooting out a tire. I have little doubt that their defensive capabilities and tactical awareness have dramatically improved in this area in the almost 5 years since then, but then wasn't now. And finally, what the fuck was Charlie Sheen smoking, snorting, drinking, and/or shooting up when he came up with this belief?
Aaaaah, I feel better, further reinforcing my belief that blogging is, in many cases, just a form of cheap psychotherapy with an audience. Now on with the show. Roy Moore enters the fray with yet another example of his mind-blowing idiocy. This time, he questions the timing of the announcement that some cows tested positive for Mad Cow disease. Apparently, he thinks, and I use the term extremely loosely, that it's all part of a conspiracy to drive small farmers out of business. I believe I speak for everyone else when I say What. The. Fuck!!! Yes, he's absolutely right, because a bunch of people whose job it is to keep the American food supply safe have nothing better to do than to fake a few test results to hurt the little guy. Nevermind that this would mainly be for cattle and other livestock that are frequently sold from one owner to the next. Nevermind that all it would take is some servers and some decent IT professionals to create and maintain this database that would be created for the purpose of finding the ancestors and herds of origin of infected cattle, thereby possibly pinpointing other infected animals. As far as preventative measures, this would be a hell of a lot cheaper than mandatory testing of every head of cattle, and would be more practical. Furthermore, this is consistent with his ultraconservative Biblical-literalist "end times" pseudo-Christianity. Was his thought process "labelling beasts, sounds a lot like mark of the beast, sounds like a sign of the End Times and the Rapture, but I need to market it as something else, so why not market it as caring for a group of people I don't give a shit about, such as everybody, but how to narrow it down? Oh, farmers!"
For the sake of fairness, I should admit that I support Governor Riley's bid for reelection, but that's only because he's shown that he knows what the fuck he's doing. He turned over a decade of deficits into a massive surplus by increasing the efficiency of the state government and bringing industry to Alabama, and now he's talking about raising the standard income tax deduction to something that's actually above the poverty line, instead of being somewhere around $5,000 for a single person as it is now. Since it makes sense, naturally, this is something Roy Moore opposes, hence my dictum that if Roy Moore has a position on something, the opposite is usually the right thing to do. I also like Lucy Baxley, the frontrunner in the fundraising for the Democratic Party nomination for governor, and would have no problem voting for her should Governor Riley lose in the Republican primary. Roy Moore has cost the state of Alabama too much money already, and would likely only do far worse should he become governor.
Dishonorable mention goes to Isaac Hayes, but that's another topic for another time.
Before I verbally rip Mr. Moore a new asshole, let's dissect Sheen's... "theory" seems such a grotesque misuse of that word for this extreme level of idiocy and implies thought, which Charlie Sheen has not actually proven capable of. If I'm understanding him correctly, he believes that hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses and billions of viewers all around the world were somehow conned by some Hollywood special-effects into thinking that what was really a number of controlled demolitions was really some fucking huge airplanes with a shitload of jet fuel that slammed into the main towers of the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. Yeah, I don't buy what Mr. Sheen is trying to sell either. First, Osama bin Laden tried to take out the WTC back in the early 1990s but only managed to take out some parking spaces and a very small number of victims. Second, this was a fanatically-determined enemy who had spent a large sum of money to execute their mission. Third, that many eyewitnesses on the ground are very nearly impossible to fool. Fourth, the WTC was one of the most financially-important complexes in one of the most financially-important cities in the world, and there's no way any person in power, Republican or Democrat, would want to see that much of their investments take the kind of hit that their demolition caused, a fact which would've been obvious to any halfway decent planner and which, in fact, was obvious to the masterminds of this attack. Fifth (and I think I need one after this), why would Republicans, of all people, want to harm the ability of the Department of Defense to function to that degree? Sixth, how exactly could the Pentagon have stopped a 747 that was aiming for them with the stuff they had available at the time? Years ago, I read in Executive Orders by Tom Clancy an analogy that applies in this case, and it was something along the order of trying to stop an out-of-control 18-wheeler by shooting out a tire. I have little doubt that their defensive capabilities and tactical awareness have dramatically improved in this area in the almost 5 years since then, but then wasn't now. And finally, what the fuck was Charlie Sheen smoking, snorting, drinking, and/or shooting up when he came up with this belief?
Aaaaah, I feel better, further reinforcing my belief that blogging is, in many cases, just a form of cheap psychotherapy with an audience. Now on with the show. Roy Moore enters the fray with yet another example of his mind-blowing idiocy. This time, he questions the timing of the announcement that some cows tested positive for Mad Cow disease. Apparently, he thinks, and I use the term extremely loosely, that it's all part of a conspiracy to drive small farmers out of business. I believe I speak for everyone else when I say What. The. Fuck!!! Yes, he's absolutely right, because a bunch of people whose job it is to keep the American food supply safe have nothing better to do than to fake a few test results to hurt the little guy. Nevermind that this would mainly be for cattle and other livestock that are frequently sold from one owner to the next. Nevermind that all it would take is some servers and some decent IT professionals to create and maintain this database that would be created for the purpose of finding the ancestors and herds of origin of infected cattle, thereby possibly pinpointing other infected animals. As far as preventative measures, this would be a hell of a lot cheaper than mandatory testing of every head of cattle, and would be more practical. Furthermore, this is consistent with his ultraconservative Biblical-literalist "end times" pseudo-Christianity. Was his thought process "labelling beasts, sounds a lot like mark of the beast, sounds like a sign of the End Times and the Rapture, but I need to market it as something else, so why not market it as caring for a group of people I don't give a shit about, such as everybody, but how to narrow it down? Oh, farmers!"
For the sake of fairness, I should admit that I support Governor Riley's bid for reelection, but that's only because he's shown that he knows what the fuck he's doing. He turned over a decade of deficits into a massive surplus by increasing the efficiency of the state government and bringing industry to Alabama, and now he's talking about raising the standard income tax deduction to something that's actually above the poverty line, instead of being somewhere around $5,000 for a single person as it is now. Since it makes sense, naturally, this is something Roy Moore opposes, hence my dictum that if Roy Moore has a position on something, the opposite is usually the right thing to do. I also like Lucy Baxley, the frontrunner in the fundraising for the Democratic Party nomination for governor, and would have no problem voting for her should Governor Riley lose in the Republican primary. Roy Moore has cost the state of Alabama too much money already, and would likely only do far worse should he become governor.
Dishonorable mention goes to Isaac Hayes, but that's another topic for another time.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Finally, proof that Bush isn't a complete and utter fuckup
Instead, he's only mostly a fuckup who best serves the country when he leaves most of the actual thinking to people who are competent to handle their respective fields. Nevertheless, he does occasionally get something right. Even random chance would necessitate such occurrences. So, I submit for your approval one such instance, an instance where he actually shows thought about what's good for the environment and the nation. A Yahoo group whose digests I read, the California Cars Initiative, brought this to my attention. For those of you unfamiliar with them, they're an advocacy group for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV's), a concept that is far more fuel-efficient than even current mass-production hybrids. As a side-note, even transcribed, the President sounds like a moron. Still, I remain very unconvinced that his opponents in 2000 and 2004 would have been any better, and suspect they would've been even worse. Anyway, here's the link and the relevant section of his speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060316-16.html
"I know it shocks some of you to hear a Texan say that we're addicted to oil -- (laughter) -- and we are. And that's a problem. In order to make sure this nation remains competitive, in order to make sure we're the leader of the world, I look forward to working with the members of the United States Congress here to pass the Advanced Energy Initiative.
"Last year, thanks to the leadership of the Speaker, I was able to sign a comprehensive energy bill. There is more work to be done. We're going to harness technology to make sure the automobiles you drive consume less oil. We believe in plug-in hybrid batteries. It's the wave of the future. We believe in the use of ethanol. I love the fact that when our farmers are growing crops it makes us less dependent on oil from the Middle East. (Applause.)
"Ours is a party that knows you got to challenge the status quo when it comes to energy. In order to make sure this country is less dependent on fossil fuels, we must promote safe and sound nuclear power. We must promote solar energy and clean coal technology and wind energy. Ours is the party that can see into the future. We don't fear it, we welcome it, because we intend to continue to lead. (Applause.)"
For those of you unfamiliar with the Advanced Energy Initiative, it was outlined in the State of the Union address, and again, is a surprisingly intelligent idea from a man who is decidedly... not. Some of you of a more blue-state persuasion may be surprised by what you read.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060316-16.html
"I know it shocks some of you to hear a Texan say that we're addicted to oil -- (laughter) -- and we are. And that's a problem. In order to make sure this nation remains competitive, in order to make sure we're the leader of the world, I look forward to working with the members of the United States Congress here to pass the Advanced Energy Initiative.
"Last year, thanks to the leadership of the Speaker, I was able to sign a comprehensive energy bill. There is more work to be done. We're going to harness technology to make sure the automobiles you drive consume less oil. We believe in plug-in hybrid batteries. It's the wave of the future. We believe in the use of ethanol. I love the fact that when our farmers are growing crops it makes us less dependent on oil from the Middle East. (Applause.)
"Ours is a party that knows you got to challenge the status quo when it comes to energy. In order to make sure this country is less dependent on fossil fuels, we must promote safe and sound nuclear power. We must promote solar energy and clean coal technology and wind energy. Ours is the party that can see into the future. We don't fear it, we welcome it, because we intend to continue to lead. (Applause.)"
For those of you unfamiliar with the Advanced Energy Initiative, it was outlined in the State of the Union address, and again, is a surprisingly intelligent idea from a man who is decidedly... not. Some of you of a more blue-state persuasion may be surprised by what you read.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Electoral reform
This post begins with a shout out to Sheryl. The reason for that will become obvious, or at least slightly less obscure, as this post continues. Part of this inspiration was a comment Snave made on my blog earlier in the comments section a post or two ago. The rest of the inspiration was from my recent realization that both of the major parties have held major influence for more than half of the lifetime of the United States of America, although both have mutated far from their original form, with only vestiges of their original shape remaining.
As someone of an independent and/or third-party bent, I have long since been concerned with the two-party system and am aware of its many and obvious failings. Ultimately, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: People vote for members of parties they don't like because the people they really like are from too small a party to be viable. This is especially true of elections of statewide or national offices, where third party candidates have about as much chance of winning as I have of hitting the Powerball, and frankly, I don't feel like driving to a state that has it. This problem, this dominance of two parties at the expense of all others, is a question that deeply concerned the people of New Zealand for years, culminating in the 1996 referendum,, that replaced their First Past the Post (FPP) system of electing members to their Parliament with a Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP, alternately known as the Additional Member System), where roughly half of their parliament is elected by the former FPP method (still used in parts of the United Kingdom and many current and former possessions thereof, including the United States), and the other half is selected from party lists in proportion to the percentage of votes each party received in the election. I'm not sure that I would like to see that large a proportion of Congress elected from national party lists as opposed to the current system, but I would like to see at least some of the seats in Congress elected in that manner with an increase in the number of members of each body, if for no other reason than to remind the rest of Congress that they are there to serve the nation, not just their patch of it.
That would address part of the problem, but not another core issue: In those constituencies currently served by the FPP system and in local and statewide elections, what method is used to determine the winner in single-winner elections? The FPP system, also known as Plurality voting, is something with which we in America are all too familiar, even if most of us have no clue what it's called. This system allows for the “spoiler effect” seen in the 1992 and 2000 United States presidential elections and encourages people to vote for those they don't necessarily like in hopes that someone they like less won't be elected. As New Zealand discovered (and later resolved), this leads to voter dissatisfaction and a reduction in the participation rates of the general public in political discourse. An interesting article on Wikipedia discusses various voting systems. The question then becomes which of the various criteria are most important in selecting a voting system. After doing some research on the various voting systems outlined in that article, I found that, of those listed, Approval voting, the Schulze method, and the Ranked Pairs method would be the best alternatives to the current First Past the Post system. The latter are newer variants of the Condorcet method, which, like the better-known Instant Runoff Voting, uses the ranking of candidates. However, unlike IRV, the various Condorcet methods guarantee that, if a candidate defeats all other candidates in a pairwise comparison, that candidate is guaranteed to win. While I prefer the Schulze and Ranked Pairs method over the Approval Voting method, I realize that technical issues may make the latter more attractive and easier to use in large-scale elections. This site has more information and offers the means for members to post their own test poll topics using various voting methods.
This is a topic that deserves far more attention than it has gotten thusfar in the United States, and it is my sincerest hope that this changes in the near future.
As someone of an independent and/or third-party bent, I have long since been concerned with the two-party system and am aware of its many and obvious failings. Ultimately, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: People vote for members of parties they don't like because the people they really like are from too small a party to be viable. This is especially true of elections of statewide or national offices, where third party candidates have about as much chance of winning as I have of hitting the Powerball, and frankly, I don't feel like driving to a state that has it. This problem, this dominance of two parties at the expense of all others, is a question that deeply concerned the people of New Zealand for years, culminating in the 1996 referendum,, that replaced their First Past the Post (FPP) system of electing members to their Parliament with a Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP, alternately known as the Additional Member System), where roughly half of their parliament is elected by the former FPP method (still used in parts of the United Kingdom and many current and former possessions thereof, including the United States), and the other half is selected from party lists in proportion to the percentage of votes each party received in the election. I'm not sure that I would like to see that large a proportion of Congress elected from national party lists as opposed to the current system, but I would like to see at least some of the seats in Congress elected in that manner with an increase in the number of members of each body, if for no other reason than to remind the rest of Congress that they are there to serve the nation, not just their patch of it.
That would address part of the problem, but not another core issue: In those constituencies currently served by the FPP system and in local and statewide elections, what method is used to determine the winner in single-winner elections? The FPP system, also known as Plurality voting, is something with which we in America are all too familiar, even if most of us have no clue what it's called. This system allows for the “spoiler effect” seen in the 1992 and 2000 United States presidential elections and encourages people to vote for those they don't necessarily like in hopes that someone they like less won't be elected. As New Zealand discovered (and later resolved), this leads to voter dissatisfaction and a reduction in the participation rates of the general public in political discourse. An interesting article on Wikipedia discusses various voting systems. The question then becomes which of the various criteria are most important in selecting a voting system. After doing some research on the various voting systems outlined in that article, I found that, of those listed, Approval voting, the Schulze method, and the Ranked Pairs method would be the best alternatives to the current First Past the Post system. The latter are newer variants of the Condorcet method, which, like the better-known Instant Runoff Voting, uses the ranking of candidates. However, unlike IRV, the various Condorcet methods guarantee that, if a candidate defeats all other candidates in a pairwise comparison, that candidate is guaranteed to win. While I prefer the Schulze and Ranked Pairs method over the Approval Voting method, I realize that technical issues may make the latter more attractive and easier to use in large-scale elections. This site has more information and offers the means for members to post their own test poll topics using various voting methods.
This is a topic that deserves far more attention than it has gotten thusfar in the United States, and it is my sincerest hope that this changes in the near future.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Line-Item Veto
I know that, on the surface, this seems to be a very attractive concept, especially to those of a more conservative persuasion. Republican or Democrat, the sheer amount of pork in each federal budget in my lifetime and longer has been riddled with these little bits of poor uses of taxpayer money. I believe that's a very serious issue and one that must be addressed, not only for ourselves, but for the generations to come. However, the Founders of our great nation enumerated the powers and responsibilities of each of the branches of our government, and more importantly, codified a clear system for each of the three branches of government to act as a check on the powers of each other. The line-item veto would be a clear violation of the Founders' intent and the Constitution of the United States of America, as it would hand some powers belonging to the Legislative branch to the Executive. In addition, as a purely practical matter, this only seems like a good idea when "your guy" is in power, whomever he, or eventually she, is or which party, if any, he or she belongs. What happens when "your guy" is out of office, and someone from the opposition party is in the White House? Also, who exactly do you think would be on the receiving end most often of the President's line-item veto power, should this become a part of our nation's laws? That, perhaps more than anything else, should give pause to Congressional proponents of this idea.
As a side-note, if a line-item veto were to exist, Senator Kerry's proposal would be nothing more than a placebo and would further weaken the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. I think I liked him better when he was lazy.
As a side-note, if a line-item veto were to exist, Senator Kerry's proposal would be nothing more than a placebo and would further weaken the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. I think I liked him better when he was lazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)