Quote quiz

Who said the following of which President this week?
""the best Republican president we've had in a while."

Give up?
Alan Greenspan said it of Bill Clinton.
Yep, Greenspan loves Bill Clinton. He especially loves Clinton's conservative economic policies. Wide open borders for trade, and fiscal responsibility were Clinton hallmarks and he pulled them off better than any Republican President since Eisenhower.
Personally, I think those policies were perfect for the time Clinton was in office. Maybe not so much today. That either makes me practical or a hypocrite depending on your perspective.

September 12 - self-righteous ignorant assholes

Post September 11 America is a pretty lousy place to be. Yeah, we waved our flags for a few days, cried together a bit, watched the same stuff on TV, and partied at the Concert for NYC some. But all those feelings of community were very short-lived. Our true nature of ignorance, blaming each other and generally lousy human nature bubbled to the surface with great force.

Shortly after September 11, 2001 an internet asshole (who knew a bit about me personally) decided I was somewhat to blame for the attacks because I voted for Ted Kennedy. In his ignorant mind, he figured that since the planes departed from Logan Airport and Kennedy is a Massachusetts liberal, and all liberals (especially Ted) are 'soft on security and crime' then Kennedy and his supporters (like me) must be partly responsible for the deaths of the thousands in New York. I am not kidding. This asshole really did believe his argument. That moment was a revelation for me. I realized that as shocking as it was to find out how much some non-Americans hate us, we also hate each other. Mix a little self-righteousness together with the hate, and acts of cruelty are the likely result.

Last year ABC Television aired a mini-series on the 5th anniversary of the attacks. The gist of the 2 day commemorative event was to make the argument that the attacks were the fault of the Clinton Administration, and that the Bush Administration behaved with great heroism. I made a sarcastic joke about this movie on a chatboard, saying that we should always remember and never lose sight of the fact that 9-11 was Clinton's fault. Another internet asshole (also armed with some personal knowledge of me) took offense and wished me dead. He followed up his death wish with further expressions of his anger, taking swipes at me on several personal levels. Again, proving how self-righteous anger often makes Americans inflict cruelty on each other. This particular ignorant asshole was so angry and nasty toward me that I couldn't really understand why he was angry. His expressions sounded like a very young child having a tantrum. I can only guess that he thought I was making an offensive joke about him, and that it was somehow personal. If he was one of the dumbasses who really did hold Clinton primarily repsonsible (I can't know for sure), then I guess he had a good reason to be very angry at me. I was making fun of that ignorant line of reasoning, and expressing my disgust with my fellow Americans. He may have thought I was being cruel to him, but I'll probably never know that for sure.

The first major terrorist act in America (post cold war) happened in Oklahoma City. Americans killed Americans for the shear joy of expressing their hatred of each other. Joy to the world. Not.

Some lyrics from one of my favorite post-September 11 songs:
"I wil lay me down
in a bunker underground
I won't let this happen to my children
meet the real world coming out of your shell
With white elephants
sitting ducks
I will rise up
Little babies' eyes, eyes, eyes, eyes"

Patriot Day - September 11

How to mark tomorrow????
The events are still fresh, the tradition of marking it are not yet set. What will become the traditions of this day? I don't want to fly my flag, that doesn't feel right. I'm sure someone will find that offensive. I'm not even comfortable with the notion that several thousand civillians dying without any warning could be 'patriots'. To me, a patriot is someone who exhibits some form of nationalism. I don't see how it relates to that day.

Patriot's Day is a Massachusetts and Maine holiday. It happens in April to mark the first battles of our war for independence against the British Empire. Today it is primarily marked by the running of The Boston Marathon, a Red Sox game and some guys marching around dressed up in costumes to elicit images of the partisan revolutionary radicals who fought for American independence.

Veterans Day is offically for honoring current members of the military. It was put into place by Woodrow Wilson on Armistice Day (the end of WWI). Today it is just another optional day off of work for most Americans.

Memorial Day's current offical purpose is honoring our war dead. It was originally put into place to honor those who died defending the Union during the US Civil War, and expanded to honor all military deaths after WWI. Currently, pop culture knows it as the first day of the summer season and the running of the Indianapolis 500. Many Americans also mark the day by honoring loved ones who have died irregardless of whether they served in the military.

What will become of September 11 in US culture? I've no idea, but the way these rememberances have morphed in the past might give some idea of how much the collective memory can change. Personally, I kind of wish it would just go away. It feels a bit to me like our national Good Friday. The day we got our ass whupped. Not very patriotic, I suppose.

Fred Thompson

This guy seems to have the stuff that many unthinking voters love: Deep voice, acting ability, tall, macho image, proven ability to lie and shovel manure, drives a pickup truck for the cameras... Therefore I think he has a real good chance to be the next President. He's Reaganesque, which is the gold standard for Republicans an many 'independent' voters. Of course, it isn't clear at all what policies he would want to pursue but no matter. He has what Americans have proven they want in a President - an image.

I am NOT gay

I've tried to find something horribly wrong with Senator Craig's toilet encounter. I think Republicans are evil people who should not have the keys to my country, so I'm a partisan who wants to 'dirty and good man's reputation' in this case. However, I don't understand what he did wrong. Shoe-to-shoe contact under the stall partition with a disputed reach-under doesn't seem so bad to me. From what I can tell, the cop was in the wrong and the Senator was in the right.

The entertaining angle on this is (aside from the mental images of these two guys in stalls) is the way the Republicans are denouncing his actions in the nastiest possible terms. Without the slightest hint of specificity on why, they want this guy gone. Not now, but yesterday. I hope it is further evidence of the Republican Party falling apart.

Now, for anyone who might have the misfortune of sitting next to me in a public toilet I have the following soundbites ready for anything you might find 'disgusting':
- It is not supposed to smell good, it is shit.
- I don't find anything about this situation to be sexually stimulating. Poop is nasty. There's no wood in this stall.
- If you feel I've crossed over into your space, I'm sorry. That is the last thing I want to do. I would prefer to do this in my own home or in an empty space of my own. I'm doing my best to avoid any social interaction at this time.

My favorite Presidental canditates

The most recent poll I've seen puts the Democratic contenders in order. My current preference number is to the left (natch), % in poll to right.
2-Hillary Clinton 36
4-Barack Obama 21
8-Al Gore 15
Unsure 10
3-John Edwards 9
6-Bill Richardson 3
1-Joe Biden 2
7-Dennis Kucinich 1
5-Chris Dodd -
9-Mike Gravel -
Other 1

Turd Blossom

Regarding Karl Rove's observations about GW Bush critcs: "What they don't like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America." No. That's wrong. "They" dislike many things about him, none of which has anything to do with loathing his common sense or middleness (whatever the hell that means). I dislike him because he has done harm to my country. I loathe him because of things he has done, not because of the image he projects. I don't give a damn about his image.
And good ol' middle American Karl has something right about me. I am elitist. I think smarts, education, wisdom, intellectualism and open-mindedness are good things. I believe all humans are elitist in some way.

Vacation over

Lots of fun and driving. Shartlesville, PA. Sign said "shart". Huh huh.

Dem hopefuls II

I dig the fact that Clinton and Obama are sparring over an issue of substance, how to engage unfriendlies in diplopamatically (cool word I fat-fingered there). I'm digging Clinton and Edwards more lately. Obama just does not seem ready for the big time to me. Richardson's proposal to completely pull out of Iraq before the end of this year is just unrealistic.

I hope I'm not alone in my perception that all the Republican candidates seem like boobs. I realize most 'swing' voters don't pay attention to anything until the general campaign (and the Republican slimeball advertising kicks in), so there's plenty of time for the filthy party machinery to tar any Dem who receives the nomination. Dammit, I'm getting pessimistic again.

Dem hopefuls

I'm not one to handicap the horses, but I do like to check them out and see which one I prefer to win. I'm not sure about this race at the moment. They've barely made it out of the gate, but at the moment...

Obama seems just too damned young and inexperienced for my taste. He's got some very good stances on matters of policy, and great stage presence but I think he's not ready for the big leagues yet given that there are so many other candidates with much more federal and executive experience.
I'm digging Hillary more as time goes on. I very much like the confrontation she's having with the Pentagon at the moment. In 2000, when her name was first tossed about as a potential Pres candidate, I didn't think she had the skills and experience to do a great job as President. But, I think she's learned a great deal during her time in the Senate and her skills in negotiating have improved greatly.
John Edwards is still cool by me. Always was, still is.
Joe Biden has the best solution on Iraq in his pocket. That also makes him cool by me.
Bill Richardson has some GREAT credentials as far as experience goes.

All in all, this group would make a great cabinet regardless of which one of the is the nominee.

Response to an ass

Thoughts on Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe column today.

"There are only a finite number of broadcast frequencies, the statists say. If the government didn't own and license them, the result would be chaos....Well, the supply of land is finite, too . Yet no one argues that real estate should be nationalized and licensed by the feds."
That's because land is not public airwaves. They are different. And I suppose 'statists' are supposed to be the bad people who believe in government action. Isn't a statist like an 'airist'? People who believe air should act? Duh uh uh uhhh uh uhhhh.

"These are the same Democrats, of course, who refuse to debate on the Fox News Channel because they object to its political agenda. So be it. But what does it say about their priorities that they gladly court Logo's niche viewers, yet snub the far larger mainstream audience that watches Fox?"
It says that they are open-minded and that the Dem party swings to the left. Logo Network swings to the left, Fox to the right. Duh...dumbass.

"Bilingual ballots, mandated by federal law in 1992, are incompatible with the American tradition of E Pluribus Unum."
Not really. Inclusion is also form of "shared identity". I say yahoo, yippee and whoopee to increasing participation in voting. That's what democracy is all about. Exclusion is what anti-statists like you are about.

"In Britain last November, a national survey measuring the trustworthiness of 19 professions found that journalists ranked dead last. Even politicians managed to edge them out....The more the press proclaims itself accurate and unbiased, the less the public seems to agree."
This survey a direct result of parcipation of Rupert Murdoch, the right wing extremist behind Fox and the tabloid crap that is so prevalent in Britain. The "press" doesn't "proclaim itself" anything. There is no spokesperson or centralized entity speaking on its behalf. Again, Jacoby is cute but wrong.

Scooter commutation vs. Clinton pardons

Republican apologists (like W spokeshole Tony Snow) are wrong in comparing Clinton's pardons to Bush's Scooter commutation. Al Gore stated the differences best on The Today Show as quoted in the NY Times:
***
“I thought it was improper,” Mr. Gore said of the decision. “He was charged with knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House, which included the vice president and the president. I thought it was very disappointing.”
Mr. Gore said the Libby pardon differed from the Clinton administration’s pardons “because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involve knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did.”
***
In other words, pardoning someone for political payback (as Clinton did) is different than commuting or pardoning someone who could point a finger of criminal or political blame at the President or VP (as W did). I do see the difference and I think Gore is right about it, but I think both actions were politically wise, but morally wrong.
Naturally, the Republican sin is worse here. Republicans are less moral than Democrats.

America the Beautiful

...but seriously. This is Cheez-it brand cracker's homage to the original American big cheeses, or something like that. Coming to a city near you this summer, a 600-pound cheese replica of Mount Rushmore. My parents took us to see Mt. Rushmore when I was a kid. We must have spent a week in that god-awful station wagon to see it. I've been putting some effort into learning more about America's founding fathers. It's gratifying to learn that they were humans subject to much the same weakenesses as more modern politicians.

Politics of Globalism

I've just finished a thoughtful book on Globalism by Joseph Stiglitz. I love this type of progressive, economic/political stuff. It is a brain massage that tickles me in the places my brain likes.
The world is getting smaller. Democrats are progressive, which means they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the many. Republicans are conservative and reactionary, meaning they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the few in their constituency. Progressives want to see stronger international governance (UN, World Bank, World Trade Organization, etc.). Conservatives (of the US variety) wish to see weaker international governance, so that industialized and militarized powers can have free reign to extend their power.
This is an interesting juxtaposition to the political philosophies of America's founding fathers. The early USofA was a federation of independent states and political schools of thought were divided along the lines of those who wanted stronger national governance vs those who wished it to be weaker. What's interesting to me is that *politically* the Democrat-Republican school of thought (against centralisation) defeated the Federalist (pro-centralisation) school. But that effectively, history trumped the political struggle and put a strong central government into place by necessity as the states became more and more interdependent.
I hope the same thing happens in today's emerging global political economy. In the US, the Conservative (anti global governance) forces are winning the policitcal struggle for power. That's a drag, but hopefully the march of history will sweep these short-run gains away in a progression toward global governance.

Protection of Marriage in Massachusetts

From The Boston Globe: "In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Governor Deval Patrick told a cheering crowd of gay-marriage advocates after the results of the Constitutional Convention were announced. "Today's vote is not just a vote for marriage equality. It was a vote for equality itself."

With Therese Murray (of the great District of fomrerly puritan Plymouth) at the gavel.

Bravo! The good guys won one! Gay people will continue to have the right to marry each other through at least 2012. Freedom, liberty and fairness have won again. Hopefully, other states will be just a morally correct as Massachusetts in the near future. Hooray for "activist judges" and the wise legistlators of this great state!

Dems looking to fix Alternative Minimum Tax problems

re: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702146_pf.html
Democratic legislators are trying to do something sensible - eliminate the huge tax increase placed on some middle class taxpayers and make up the revenue loss by a small tax increase on the very rich. The Republican spin machine has not gotten into gear to squash this in the news media yet, but it will. To no one's surprise, the right spinning catchphrase will be something along the lines of "Democrats want to raise taxes/there they go again" or some such poop.

Unfortunately, the Dems don't have such a spin machine and don't have enough power in the legislature to get past the 'obstructionist' 'partisan' 'political theatre' that the Repubs will employ. The bill will die.

Conservative media bias and Mitt

From the last Republican Presidential Debate:
Wolf: "Knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?"
Romney: "If Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction...we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in."
Wolf rephrased.
Romney - "You can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn't be having this -- this discussion."

Um...Mitt...Saddam Hussein DID LET THE INSPECTORS IN!!!! Were you too busy lying to the people of Massachusetts then to pay attention to the run up to war!?!?!?!?!?

Grrrr...Mitt Romney is a clueless liar with good hair and a pretty smile. The media gave him a pass on this one. Not one word about it after the debate.

Politicians are People

A theory on swing voters: A large portion of them choose their candidate based soley on the attractiveness of the image they project. These voters care little or nothing for issues of policy. They want a candidate that looks good to them on TV and in print, and that they expect will continue to look good when they hold office. Two quotes from this type of voter sticks in my mind: 1) "I vote for the man not the party" 2) "Anyone who always votes for the same party is an idiot".

I don't vote for "the man" and I always vote Democratic in general elections. I'm sure that "issues of character" have some role in my own decision-making during primary season, but I make every intellectual effort to remember that I'm not voting for my favorite celebrity. I try to remember that an elected offical is someone who makes decisions about how my country is run, before they are a name and face in the news for me to feel good or bad about.

Voting for a politician based on their profile in People Magazine is an ugly reality of participatory democracy in a media saturated culture. If we let the unwashed ignorant masses have a say, this kind of unfortunate stupidity is unavoidable.

Morality and taxes

One of the strongest held arguments of the libertarian mindset is the notion that taxes are theft, and therefore immoral. The argument goes that since the state really shouldn't exist, tax payments are coerced, and wages are the product of the hard work of the individual...or something like that. The argument is so black-and-white that it is non-sensical to me. It seems proof positive that conservative philosophy really is based in justifying selfishness.

So, here's my take. It doesn't matter if the state (government) should exist because it does exist.
Wages and wealth are not JUST the product of the work of the individual. In large part they are, but the state plays a part in any wages or return on investments. The governemnt (and the society it regulates and supports) also contributes to the ability of the individual to earn cash. Because of this, government is entitled to receive a portion of the earnings it helped produce. Coercing the individual to pay a portion of their income to support the state is not theft. It is natural that the group (society) expects some contribution by all. It is also natural that some individuals will make attempts to avoid contributing to the whole. Avoidance of carrying out this responsility by illegal means or philosophical argument is the immoral position.

Thanks to Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan...

...for having a large hand in making me the hardcore liberal Democrat I am today. They are two giants in the rise of the evil Republican right in the modern USofA. (Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are also very important figures.) As a young man coming to understand the political world around me, I reacted to their evil. So, cheers to you two rotten apples and to the hope that the political winds are finally turning a bit away from the immoral, bigoted, hateful political ideas and talking points that are still with us today.

“The enemies of America give us probably what we deserve. When we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen.’” The Reverend Jerry Falwell, September 13 2001.