The low-effort thought of John Archer

   I've been seeing a number of signs and TV ads for John Archer, who is running for Congress in Iowa's 2nd district. With the redistricting, this does not include Linn county, so this will not apply to most of my Rockwell Collins coworkers. But this does include Johnson county, so I do know a few people in that district. So here's the TV ad I've been seeing; let's go through it.

Some people act like you need a PhD from Harvard to run our government. (0:00 - 0:04)

   Is that supposed to be a shot at Obama? Does this guy realize that Romney went to Harvard, too? In fact, I think Romney spent more years at Harvard than Obama. In reality, I suspect he knows exactly what he is doing and his goal is for the conservative viewer to think about Obama and forget about Romney. In other words, he's taking advantage of flawed human thinking (or that low-effort thought I referred to in the title).

Everything I need to know is in the United States Constitution. (0:04-0:07)

   Ummm...not even a course in economics 101? What he's doing here is again targeting his conservative base (he has a primary to win yet, after all) by throwing out this buzzword of ignorance. Need I point out how a lot of conservatives view themselves as fierce defenders of the constitution these days? All a politician needs to do is mention the word and their constituents will automatically get a hard on. (Yet, even the women...it's a metaphor!)

Respect life, preserve the 2nd Amendment, restore power to the States so that we the people can govern ourselves. (0:10 - 0:17)

   Translation: "I'm against abortion and contraception, and you can reasonably suspect I'm against women's rights in general. I think white people should have unrestricted access to guns. I want the States to have more power so those good 'ol red states can more easily follow their archaic ways of life — making abortion and contraception illegal, suppressing women and minorities, discriminating against the homos, teaching the Bible as literal Truth™, which then includes teaching creationism instead of evolution and, yes, teaching that the earth is 6000 years old." Note that I suggested that people like him only want to preserve the 2nd Amendment for white people. I would imaging that if I were to speak of someone of Middle Eastern descent wanting to buy a dozen assault rifles, many conservatives would lose their shit. That would not be OK with them. Yet, if a white guy would want that many assault rifles??? Meh.

And you know what's not in here? That's right — government run health care. (0:17 - 0:22)

   So what? The implication here, of course*, is that government run health care is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure the constitution says nothing specifically about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade, so we can expect Archer to be against these programs as well. The same goes for things like radio, TV, and Internet. Better get rid of the FCC. I don't recall anything in there about environmental protection. Good bye, EPA. Seriously, though, it bothers me a bit because this whole "That's not in the constitution" game is only about opposing things conservatives dislike. There are probably a number of government policies that conservatives like — they probably don't mind the FCC keeping profanity off of the TV — that they don't mind despite being "unconstitutional" based on this false standard of anything that is not explicitly stated in the constitution being unconstitutional.

   On a side note, the book he is holding also includes the Declaration of Independence, according to the cover of the book.

   Overall, I find the video quite cheesy. As I mentioned earlier, he has a primary to win first, so this particular video is likely aimed at conservatives. Yet, I'll give him some credit for doing a decent job of using code words to allude to his positions instead of being straight forward about them, which could likewise hurt his chances in the general election. So, that's why I'm here to help decode Archer's commercial. I see "Tea Party" written all over him.

   Your thoughts?


* Perhaps I should not say "of course." There is a conservative posting in the comments that either doesn't get the implication or hir's playing dumb. I suspect the later, but maybe they really don't get it.

I wonder if they'd accept my design?

   So, the State of Iowa is allowing license plates with a pro-life message. I'm not sure it's best for the government to allow a politically charged issue to be on the plates, but then that would mean the government should either not allow any activism/specialty plates or they would have to declare what is and is not a politically charged issue. I would also be against the later. This means the state should either allow all or none. (For those who don't live in Iowa, we have many types of activism/specialty plates, including one for bicyclists.)

   I see that Iowa also has a "God Bless America" plate, too. I think it's time to turn things around in the correct direction. But I wonder how they'd react to this idea:

Is it sexist to protect the wives of political candidates? Your thoughts?

   I do claim to be a feminist, and thus I do try to call out sexism when I see it. I've been noticing what seems to be a bit of sexism in presidential politics that got hot yesterday.

   The trigger event apparently occurred Tuesday night on CNN when Hillary Rosen suggested "it was wrong for Mitt Romney to be using [Ann Romney] as his guide to women's economic struggles when she 'had never worked a day in her life.'" I don't find it as all that horrible of a remark. Rosen was specifically talking about how Ann Romney had a job that pays actual money, whether it be in private industry, government, etc. However, since Rosen just said "work," she phrased her remark in a way that left it vulnerable to being taken out of context, like in the response she received from Ann Romney:

   It has been quite disappointing that this has been turned into a supposed attack on mothers. It wasn't. (Never mind that this was likely viewed as an opportunity to distract from the Republican's "War on Women.") Perhaps the most disappointing thing I saw were comments from President Obama that I heard this morning in his attempts to play defense. (Interestingly, the interviewer was from my local ABC affiliate!)

I don’t have a lot of patience for commentary about the spouses of political candidates. My general view is those of us who are in the public life, we’re fair game. Our families are civilians.

   My big problem with this is that, the way I see it, Mitt Romney brought his wife into the public when he said, "My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me, and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy." I can understand the families being off limits when they don't really do anything for their candidate other than make appearances with them, but if they are actively campaigning and serving as an adviser on women? Does that not put them in "public life"?

   Now, when I first saw the Obama comment, I was thinking it may have been a bit sexist, hence the title of this post. I was thinking this was maybe even some misogynistic "protect the vulnerable women" move. As I've been writing, I'm no longer sure. I may be seeing it that way because so often presidential candidates are male. But then I had to think back four years ago when Sarah Palin was on the ballot for vice president. (Hillary Clinton doesn't count because Bill Clinton was obviously in the "public life") A lot of the focus on her family was on her pregnant daughter, but didn't she even try to declare her husband Todd off limits? It's been a while, so my memory is not clear on this. But if that is the case, this may just be politics at its worst—family members are used as tools. It's not right for candidates to use their families to enhance their image, but then be hostile to criticism.

Your thoughts?

Can we recognize Bill Maher as both a red herring AND a problem?

   For those of you who may be living under a rock for the last week, conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh has been under a lot of heat for sexist comments he has made. Well, now conservatives have been going after Bill Maher, who has a history of making sexist comments. Unfortunately, it sounds like some liberals have been defending Maher under the guise that Maher is a comedian. I can see this as being a valid excuse to an extent...that extent being to the point that comedians will often play off of stereotypes to make their jokes. The problem is that Maher way oversteps this boundary. One can tell from some of the things he's said that he is seriously sexist. I've embedded a video below if you'd like to judge for yourself. (Also on an interesting note, while the right is now attacking Maher, Maher actually suggested that liberals accept Limbaugh's notpology.

   There are two things I want to say to liberals. First, I'm sure you realize as much as I do that this attack on Maher is just a red herring to both distract away from Limbaugh's comments as well as a way to play the "They do it, too!" blame game. Call them out on it! But, second, you must admit that Maher is a sexist pig as well. Their game is to make us out to be hypocrites and it appears that some liberals are going to allow conservatives to win that point.

   I do, of course, realize the trap the conservatives have set up. It's a financial trap. Some conservatives want Obama's Super PAC to return money donated by Maher. My guess is in return they want liberals to ease off on Limbaugh, who has been losing advertisers. The solution, as I see it, is to say, "No, Obama's Super PAC does not have to reject/return Maher's money." There is no rule that a candidate has to vet his donors to make sure they don't do anything controversial. Same goes for the Republican candidates — if Limbaugh donates any money to them, they shouldn't have to reject/return any money just because Limbaugh is a slimeball.

   On a final note, I think the conservatives are also grasping for straws. I'm not sure what to do here except to just call them out on it. I am getting the impression that they are upset that liberals did not criticize Maher with such ferocity for attacks on Palin, others, as we are criticizing Limbaugh. There are three problems here. First and foremost, I don't think Maher is anywhere close to being a voice for liberals as Limbaugh is for conservatives. When Maher says something stupid, many liberals can honestly say, "Well, I don't listen to Maher anyway." I don't see how conservatives can say the same for Limbaugh...not that there aren't conservatives out there who don't care for Limbaugh. I'm sure there are plenty that don't listen to or care for the man. The point is there is an unequal level of popularity between the two. It does not then make sense for the outrage to be equal. Second, conservatives seem to be complaining not about Maher's misogynistic views in general, but specifically his attacks on conservative women. Come on, conservatives! If you want us to think you really care about women, then don't limit your complaint to Maher's treatment of your own. This shows that conservatives just don't get it. It reveals that they honestly think the issue with Limbaugh's comments is his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute." It's not. It's about treatment of women and, for some of us, the double-standards for men and women in regards to sexual health that men like Limbaugh hold. Third, and a much less significant point, the conservatives seem to be upset about Maher insulting women who are political figures (whether politicians or just political pundits). Sandra Fluke, who Limbaugh has criticized, is neither*. Now, this in no way excuses Maher for his behavior, but I don't see a political figure insulting other political figures quite as deserving of the same outrage as a political figure insulting someone who is not. Again, this is not excusing the behavior of political figures insulting one another. The overall point is that the Maher vs. Limbaugh comparisons are not on equal ground, so it is not fair for conservatives to be expecting equal treatment.
* One could claim that Sandra Fluke is an activist for women's rights, but I wouldn't put that in quite the same category. I mean, I consider myself to be somewhat of an activist (even if I'm pretty much limited to just voicing my thoughts on my blog right now).

   In the end, though, I am disappointed that some liberals are being hypocrites. Shame on them, but shame on conservatives for trying to spread the blame instead of dealing with their issues.

Face, meet Palm - Of Course Theology Matters!!!

   On Monday, January 30, 2012, Frank Rich, "New York Magazine`s" writer
at large, appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show. He about left me pulling out my hair after some of the stupid things he said. Here is the video for reference (you can skip ahead to at least the 2:00 mark). Below, I'll be covering parts of the transcript that disappointed me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Buzzwords of Ignorance: Constitution

Credit goes to Don Baker and his "Buzzwords of Ignorance" series on The Atheist Experience for the inspiration of this post title. The idea of "Buzzwords of Ignorance" is to address words that are used primarily to evoke an emotional response as opposed to making a rational argument due to the ignorance of the audience being addressed, essentially making the word meaningless. Needless to say, this post has no connection to Mr. Baker's series.

   There are essentially three cases where I see the word "constitution" (and its derivatives) used out of ignorance:

1. Policy X is unconstitutional.
2. Policy X goes against the Founding Fathers' original intent of the Constitution.
3. Politician X will restore the Constitution.

Live Blogging the New Hampshire Primary.

   It's primary night in New Hampshire, and I thought it may be time to make some general comments on what has been happening. I have been watching MSNBC's coverage, and just want to chip in on some of the things they have been discussing as well as some of the candidate's speeches.

• European Socialism - At one point, the question was asked why does Romney need to accuse Obama of being in favor of European socialism. Easy! It is to create an us-versus-them mentality. Though, it was interesting when Rachel Maddow pointed out that Romney avoided Vietnam by taking a missionary to France, proposing that he's trying to distance himself from that part of his past. Perhaps he is killing two birds with one stone? After all, this idea isn't Romney's; other Republicans have used this argument before.
• Military - Romney said he would make sure the US military is one no one would think of challenging. OhhhhhhK. That's just nuts.
• I like Romney running with the hypocrisy of some of his opponents. John Stewart covered this, too, and I plan to put it in a post of its own, so stay tuned for more here.
• I started blogging late, so is there anything else I missed (from Romney's speech)?
• Ron Paul is happy to be "dangerous!" Yes, Paul, you are a danger to our economy; for that I can never vote for you. But, he seems to think the Federal Reserve is the entire problem for the current state of the economy. Deregulation (a.k.a. letting banks do whatever the fuck they want) somehow has nothing to do with it, and likewise it's all the fault of regulations, because somehow it's regulations that have led to banks paying off politicians. Somehow, if there weren't regulations, banks wouldn't do this. Oh, and he thinks going to the gold standard is somehow a good idea.
• At least Paul is for ending the current wars. That's the one primarily good thing he has going for him. Points for making fun of the USA by picking on Russia for invading Afghanistan.
• Ron Paul claims the roll of government is to protect liberty. Except for States, of course. If they want to discriminate against homosexuals, prevent women from getting abortions, etc, that's cool by Paul. Just as long as the NATIONAL government doesn't get involved.
  
• Otherwise, his whole idea of "freedom" just plays on people's naivety. I once met a libertarian from Des Moines, Iowa. Here in Cedar Rapids, we have speeding cameras. Apparently he travels for work a lot and was complaining about those, and traffic laws in general, because they slow him down too much. See, he wanted to get rid of laws (regulations) so that he could legally act irresponsibly. And I have a suspicion that's what is really behind libertarian "freedom": I want to do stupid shit without it being illegal! The problem I have here with libertarians is their lack of concern for others. What about my freedom to drive at a safe speed without having to worry about idiots on the road going too fast? This is, in short, the problem with "freedom": freedom occasionally clashes. What satisfies one person's freedom may violate the freedom of someone else. Libertarians fail to address this problem (I think they fail to realize it even exists).



• Wife is interrupting the Huntsman speech, making blogging difficult!



• Huntsman thinks the solution to Congress is term limits. Laughable. But at least he wants to prevent Congressmen to get top positions in banks, etc, after their term. First, any law to restrict Congress would be essentially impossible because you need Congress to pass these restrictions against themselves (unless there is some loophole I do not know about). Good luck with that! But, if you could, preventing them from getting such jobs would be helpful.



• Like Paul, Huntsman has better military policies than the other Republican candidates.



• When talking about the "old ways" of politicking, he failed to mention "kissing babies." No reason for him to have said that other than it would have been funny and it fits stereotypes.

UPDATE 1: I forgot! It's not all the fault of regulations, in the minds of libertarians. There is the problem of government picking favorites! Which, to their credit, is something on which I can somewhat agree with them. The issue I have, though, is that the reason we are in this mess is because big business wanted the government to pick them as favorites (through lobbying and other ways); it's not like government just decided to do this entirely on its own. So, you can strip away the government, but you're only taking away a tool — albeit a very powerful tool — from the big businesses all the while failing to address the ethical problems with big business. And here is where things may come full circle, because I think some libertarians have it in their heads that the big businesses are unethical because of regulations.

Iowa Caucuses - That Didn't Go As Planned!!!

   There had been people, especially the Occupy Iowa Caucus group, suggesting the idea that Iowan Democrats could go to vote "Uncommitted," as reported by John Nichols and Cenk Uygur. Well, apparently Occupy Iowa Caucus needed to do better research, because that's not what happened. We didn't get a choice. Probably because there is only the one candidate: Barack Obama. In years where there is more than one candidate, then, yes, caucus goers can be "Uncommitted." It has been 16 years since there was a Democratic President seeking re-election, and apparently Ralph Nader was a candidate then. Yet...

   Yet, it is claimed in Wikipedia that there was a 2% for "Uncommitted/Other." If you look for Linn county in this table, you will see that all the delegates went to Obama whereas some other counties have "Other County Delegates". OK, I'm feeling a bit jipped. Did I have to explicitly state, "I'm not here to support Obama!!!"? If so, I wish I would have had better warning! (I'm looking at you, Occupy Iowa Caucus!)

   Oh...well. One thing I did decide to do is GET INVOLVED and volunteer to be a county delegate. I tell people who are frustrated with politics that they really need to do this someway some how. Sitting around bitching doesn't necessarily do anything unless you have a large audience of politically involved people that will hear you out. I don't have that. I do understand, though, why people do bitch instead of getting involved. First of all, I am only one person out of 200 for my county and I become less and less significant at higher levels (district, state, national). Any impact I can make is pretty miniscule, if I can make any impact at all. Second, this means being involved requires a bit of work for possibly no gain. Bitching, on the other hand, requires virtually no work for the same no gain.

   The one biggest complain I have about this whole process has to be the pressure to fall in line. Last night was an occasion where I could have some sympathy for people who call themselves "independent." I've made the argument before (see the side note) that if you agree with much of what a group stands for, then get involved and work to change those things for which you disagree! But, boy, the pressure to conform is certainly there, and I can see how not only people with less informed minds can crack under such pressure, but how people with better informed minds, such as mine, can get frustrated with it—it felt almost like being in a robot factory with people doing things (most notably cheering) on command. I must admit, though, my dislike for the President could likely be skewing those feelings and it is actually my disappointment with people who cheer the guy on that I am truly feeling.

   Other thoughts are that I am fed up with this idea that Iowa has to be "first in the nation." This created some confusion last night as this is a redistricting year, and redistricting takes effect January 8, five days after the caucuses. I'm not sure anything had to be done other than delegates just had to know what precinct they would be representing come the county convention. There didn't seem to be any major concern about, say, no delegates representing a precinct because no one from the old precincts selected as delegates live in the new one. (For example, I live in precinct CR-27 for about three more days. Most of the precinct will become CR-08, but CR-08 will also have parts from what I think is CR-28 and some parts of CR-27 will not be in CR-08. If all the delegates from CR-27 lived in the part that is not going to be CR-08 and no delegates from CR-28 live in the part that will be CR-08, then CR-08 would have no delegates. (Hope that example didn't just make things more confusing!)) In short, holding caucuses before redistricting takes effect does not seem wise.

   Still, I would much rather have everyone hold a primary on the same day. I realize that spreading the primaries out provides a process of elimination, but I think this can be easily solved with instant runoff voting.

   Lastly, there were some comments on YouTube political videos bitching about how "The election is rigged," or something to that effect. It may not have been all that many people saying that, but they were getting a lot of upvotes. My suspicion is that they were Ron Paul supporters, because they've been known to bring up conspiracy theories before, especially ones about how the establishment and the media hate Ron Paul and want to see him lose because—get this—they know how great of a president he will be. Otherwise, I just love how people have to grab for conspiracy theories when their candidates don't do as well as they had hoped. You lost; deal with it.

What you talkin' about, Perry?

   Rick Perry's ad have been quite comical. A few of them have been him or his wife bragging about their Christian values. Too bad for him his god didn't pull through for him on the Texas drought. 'Nough said on that!

   In his latest ad, he is bragging about his idea for a part-time Congress. Apparently he brought this up in a debate. See the video and more comments below.

The part that really got my attention was when he said, "Let them get a job like everybody back home has." OK, Rick, which planet are you from?!? Oh...right...Texas! The Washington Post recently released an article showing the growth in the net worth of Congresspersons since 1984. That net worth has more than doubled since then and the median net worth is reported to be $725,056. (Click on the graphic to the right to enlarge.) The majority of these people don't need to "get a job"! Rick Perry, I don't mind your idea of cutting their pay in half, but the rest of your proposals fail to address any of the real issues with Congress as you don't seem to be in touch with reality.

Note: The bottom 25 members of Congress all have negative net worth's. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean they are poor folk; it just means they have more debt than assets. The Congressperson with the lowest net worth (see the link) has a net worth of almost -$5 million. Someone like me would never be able to obtain the loans necessary to get that far in debt. Anyway, the point remains that Perry is an idiot.

100th Post, Writer's Block, and Janeane Garofalo

   The Midwest Atheist blog has reached its 100^th post! Where's the cake?

   In other news, I'm feeling a bit of a writer's block. I do have some drafts in the works, but I'm just not feeling "it." And I'm running out of ideas for topics. If anyone wants to send me suggestions, that would be cool.

   Otherwise, I leave you with a clip from last week of Janeane Garofalo on "Countdown." (The clip does not start at the beginning of the segment, so checkout the transcript below for the rest.)

DAVID SHUSTER: If the right wing is good at one thing, it is creating attack lines. They usually have no basis in fact, but are catchy and scary.

In our number-one story — the latest right-wing attack on President Obama appears to be a retread. No, not the "Obama is a secret Muslim" line, but painting the Obamas as arugula-eating elitists who — more than anything — are "uppity."

It was in 2008 that then-candidate Obama said Americans were bitter over the American government's failures to fix the economic situation. The right-wing response, led by their candidate John McCain, was to paint the interracial child of a single mother as elitist. But, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, the right wing is using its leftovers and bringing that attack line back. The re-launch of the attack started last week, when Rick Perry brought his fledgling campaign to Sean Hannity to discuss the out-of-context sound of Obama calling the government "lazy."

(Excerpt from video clip) SEAN HANNITY: This is not the first time that he's gone after the American people. What does it reveal to you about his mindset and his thinking?

(Excerpt from video clip) RICK PERRY: It reveals to me that he grew up in a privileged way. He never had to really work for anything

SHUSTER: Of course, in 2008 the elitist attack failed. So this time around, the right wing decided to paint the whole Obama family as elitist. Enter Rush Limbaugh. He took it upon himself to explain the NASCAR fan's disrespectful reaction to the first lady from over the weekend.

(Excerpt from video clip) RUSH LIMBAUGH: NASCAR people, the rest of us, we do not like being told — "steak and arugula." We do not like being told that we can only eat what's in her garden. We don't like being told what to eat. We don't like being told how much to exercise. They understand it's a little bit of uppity-ism.

SHUSTER: Maybe Rush is right. There is nothing more "uppity" than the first lady of a nation with a growing obesity epidemic encouraging people to exercise and eat right. Who needs to do that when an obese person can simply pay a Florida-based weight loss center to feed them low-calorie foods and supplements to help them lose 90 pounds? Why encourage every citizen to display self-control when you can just pay a company to lose the weight for you. Right, Rush?

Let's bring in comedian and friend of the show, Janeane Garofalo. Janeane, thanks for your time tonight. For putting up with that line.

JANEANE GAROFALO: Thank you for having me.

SHUSTER: This idea of the Obamas being uppity and privileged — coming from a party that has the likes of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich running for the nomination — do they not have a mirror?

GAROFALO: Well, what he means, I think, by "privileged" — Rick Perry is saying that — what he's really saying is that he did not have to work for what he got. It's affirmative action. He — he was the beneficiary of all of these liberal, social engineering. He didn't deserve to get into the schools he got into. He doesn't deserve to be where he is. He's — you know, that's what he means by privileged. And when he also talks about pretending Obama said Americans were lazy. He is picking that word, again, because that's a conservative meme — the welfare mothers and they want handouts and people, you know what I mean, poor people are lazy and they want the government to do things for them.

SHUSTER: Except when the poor people are conservatives or Republicans?

GAROFALO: Oh, it's always a double standard when it's conservatives and so forth.

But uppity is — it's the hack-est — you know what I mean, the most obvious thing and that's why Rush Limbaugh says it — but how dare a black woman, no less, tell people to eat healthy and to show up at NASCAR, which is the bastion of real America. It's just one of those things where, as usual, the conservative movement of the Republican Party — because their pool of applicants, if you will, is shrinking as modernity sets in and time moves on and more and more people in our culture and society become more enlightened and become more forward thinking — they have less and less people who are going to be Republican and conservative and that old chestnut, Libertarian, which is really nothing more than a conservative. So, they have to do things like use divisive language or —

SHUSTER: But why do it in such a way that's so reminiscent of 2008, when it didn't work?

GAROFALO: What have they got? What other material — it's a hack medium. You have to get some new material. The thing is — it always works on a certain segment of the population. If you are trying to appeal to the worst in us — quite literally the worst in us — and trying go to the limbic brain of anxiety, fear, intolerance, hatred, bitterness, ignorance —you have to just use these very simple, as they say, dog-whistle words and things to get to them.

SHUSTER: How does it work, then, for Father of the Year Joe Walsh? He recently called the Occupy protesters un-American, among other things.

GAROFALO: Sure.

SHUSTER: Is the GOP that far into the pockets of the banks that protesting the banks is some how protesting America in Joe Walsh's world?

GAROFALO: They have to pretend that's the case. This is a party of "Freedom fries." Do you remember "Freedom fries" and "Freedom toast?" Two of the more embarrassing things that have ever happened in this country — at the commissary, post 9-11. That you could not say French toast and French fries. And I believe French toast is from Belgium — or French fries are from Belgium and French toast, I think, is from Buffalo, New York originally.

Be that as it may — and Michele Bachmann wanted that American test — how American are you? It's just so silly, it infantilizes us all. And unfortunately, the mainstream media is quite willing to help them to this. Quite willing to let these things slide. But they do love a black man like Herman Cain and Michael Steele and — is it Ron Christie? — any of these pundits who pretend we are in a post-racial society. They like that kind of black person.

SHUSTER: What kind of reaction would we get, or what would the right — how would they react — if the pepper spraying at UC Davis had been on tea party ralliers?

GAROFALO: Oh, my God! Well, pepper spray would be banned, first and foremost. And if you think about it, the tea party — many of them claim to be armed? Right? — they were very pridefully saying, "I have my gun at this health-care town hall," or "I am not armed this time." They had signs that would say that.

So, how is linking arms on a college campus an act of aggression, but saying you have a gun and you are willing to use it and it's time to secede into revolution and you don't recognize this government as legitimate? How is that not seen as some type of aggressive thing? It's one of those things that, again, it is just so silly, and it makes you feel like you are the crazy one when you see these things.

But the double standard that exists for the tea party, which is not, by the way, a grassroots movement that is concerned with deficits and government expansion. They are an Astroturfed, fully funded by the Koch brothers and Freedom Works and supported by Fox News — they are a group -- they are a subset of the Republican Party, primarily motivated by racial intolerance.

SHUSTER: Well, Janeane Garofalo it's always a pleasure to have you here to talk about these fun issues.

GAROFALO: Is there not more? Can we talk about how to kill a turkey? There are better ways to kill a turkey. Let's drag it behind a car.

SHUSTER: Thanks, Janeane, we appreciate it.

Respect my Polish roots, yo!!!

(via Crommunist)

Apparently, Poland has an anti-clerical party, the Palikot Movement. Part of this movement is now Poland's first transsexual and gay MPs! According to the BBC report, the party "campaigned for the legalisation of abortion, gay marriage and marijuana." Kudos to Poland for this progressive push to the left.

It's confirmed - I'm not a Libertarian

   Unfortunately, but to little surprise, there are Libertarians involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement, and particularly the Occupy Iowa City movement. I was there two weeks ago, and picked up some propaganda.

Have the Republicans and Democrats let you down? You're not alone. Find out if you're a Libertarian.

Following this, they have a quiz with Libertarian positions to which the quiz taker is to respond whether they agree (20 points), disagree (0 points), or are a maybe (10 points). (Apparently, there is even a Wikipedia page for this thing!) The first five are social issues and the second five are economic issues. Following these is a matrix on which the quiz taker can use (see image on right) to determine if they are liberal, statist (in favor of big government), conservative, libertarian, or someone who fits in the centrist middle.

   Below I will post the positions with my answers in curly brackets {}.

How do you stand on PERSONAL issues?

• Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.
  {Agree, for the most part. I'd say hate speech is an exception in certain situations. There may be other exceptions I cannot think of in the time being, too. But give me 20 points.}
• Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
  {Yep. 20 points.}
• There should be no laws regarding sex between consenting adults.
  {Chalk me up another 20 points.}
• Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
  {Well, based on the position as written, I suppose they can mark me up for 20 points. However, I am first not in favor of legalizing the selling of many drugs, though I doubt many Libertarians would disagree with this either. Second, I am also in favor of government keeping track of people who have had drug addiction problems and providing, and sometimes requiring, rehab programs for such people. Libertarians may not necessarily agree on this point.}
• There should be no National ID card.
  {I'll have to put myself down as "Maybe" on this one. I think it is good to be able to easily identify people, but I do understand the concerns, though they push the boundaries of paranoia, of such a system being abused. 10 points.}

That brings me to a 90 on the social scale. This already prevents me from being a centrist, statist, or conservative based on the matrix. That means I can either be a liberal or libertarian at this point. Let's continue.

How do you stand on ECONOMIC issues?

• End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
  {I think I have to put myself down as a "maybe" for this one. 10 points. I think government should be supportive of businesses that manufacture products that are beneficial to the public, but are otherwise not economically viable. Products that make use of renewable energies like wind and solar is a good example.}
• End government barriers to international free trade.
  {No, I think I'm going to have to disagree on this one. 0 points. No, free trade is a bad idea. Not to pay service to nationalism, but some other nations just don't treat their citizens very well (I know the USA doesn't always either). I just don't think it's right to trade freely with such nations. I know that is a difficult thing to do, because how is the government supposed to decide which countries haven't earned a right to free trade.}
• Let people control their own retirement: privatize Social Security.
  {Hell. No. This pretty much defeats the whole concept of Social Security, which is to have a safety net for those who failed to save up for retirement. The idea is to take retirement out of the hands of people. And more so to help out the poor. I'm fine with this system. 0 points.}
• Replace government welfare with private charity.
  {NO!!! Gosh, Libertarians frustrate the hell out of me on this issue. They want to spend their money how they see fit. And, of course, they donate lots of time and money to charity! Or so they say. Frankly, I often suspect what they do isn't much more than paying lip service. More importantly is what do you do about the people who don't give to charity? How do you make sure they contribute? I am afraid Libertarians probably aren't really worried about such a problem, because that's all part of an individual's freedom. But that's not how a society functions, which is by the individuals making sacrifices, as necessary, to their personal betterment in favor of the betterment of the society. (I often get the feeling, in cases like this, that Libertarians tend to be fairly privileged individuals who are not worried about being on the disadvantaged side of society.) Anyway, 0 points.}
• Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
  {I'll mark this as "Maybe" only because I wouldn't mind seeing some cuts in spending, especially military spending. Otherwise, as there are areas where I would not cut spending as per some of my answers above, I can't see any possibility for tax cuts, especially when there is a huge deficit to pay off. 10 points.}

Well, I only scored 20 points on the economic issues. I needed 50 or more to be a libertarian. So, turns out I'm a liberal. Who knew!?!

Radical!!! - Part 5: The Overton Window

This is part of a 5-part series. Following are the links to the other parts. Part 1  Part 2  Part 3  Part 4

   In the first part of this series, I talked about some issues that have changed over time, including allowing women the right to vote, civil rights for blacks, and even acceptance of birth control. One I did not mention that is very important to this discussion is gay rights, particularly the right to marry. All of these issues relate to the concept of the Overton Window. This is a political theory, conceived by Joseph Overton, that deals with the range of politically acceptable ideas in regards to the possible ideas.

Cases in Projection - Sometimes those ringing the alarm bells are the cause for alarm.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.

   I have encountered people online as well as one coworker who call themselves "Constitutionalists." One of my major issues with them is that they often seem to cherry-pick through the Constitution and/or interpret it in whatever way they see fit. (I.e, "The First Amendment only applies to Christians, but not Muslims.") However, the thing that bothers me the most is that (and this one is inspired by my coworker) they will say things along the lines "You have to know your rights before they are taken away!" The other thing worth noting is that these people have a tendency to support conservative (Republican) policies. Therefore, they are probably worried about liberals coming for their guns!!!

Sam Harris says (almost) everything I wanted to say eloquently!

(via pharyngula)

Apparently, Sam Harris has been taking some heat from his Libertarian fans from a post he made regarding the rich, and Harris recommended raising their taxes. I have been collecting notes for a post of my own on Libertarians and why their proposals won't work, but it seems Harris has covered many of the points I was planning to make.

Many of my critics imagine that they have no stake in the well-being of others. How could they possibly benefit from other people getting first-rate educations? How could they be harmed if the next generation is hurled into poverty and despair? Why should anyone care about other people’s children? It amazes me that such questions require answers.

This is something that I have encountered that bothers me everytime I see it. I once saw someone ask the question of why they should have to pay for other people's children to go to school when her and her husband were not planning to have kids. There are many examples of why they should, but the one I provided was that it was going to be other people's children taking care of her in a nursing home if and when she gets to that age. It's amazing how short-sighted people can be.

Why do we have laws in the first place? To prevent adults from behaving like dangerous children. All laws are coercive and take the following form: do this, and don’t do that, or else. Or else what? Or else men with guns will arrive at your door and take you away to prison. Yes, it would be wonderful if we did not need to be corralled and threatened in this way. And many uses of State power are both silly and harmful (the “war on drugs” being, perhaps, the ultimate instance). But the moment certain strictures are relaxed, people reliably go berserk. And we seem unable to motivate ourselves to make the kinds of investments we should make to create a future worth living in. Even the best of us tend to ignore some of the more obvious threats to our long term security.

Obama followup and After the S&P Downgrade

One thing I want to add to my last post is that Obama is still failing on his story telling. I recall from the tapes on his recent speeches him saying something about trying to fix things instead of demonizing his opponents. The problems are that he has NOT been fixing things and that sometimes you have to call a spade a spade! Call out the Tea Party Republicans for being the cause of the S&P downgrade. Though no fingers were directly pointed, "S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said. “That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added."

The problem is that some conservatives are trying to point the finger at Obama's administration, claiming those in the administration were the ones saying how not raising the debt ceiling would lead to disaster (default), while the Tea Party was saying default would not happen if the debt ceiling were not raised. See? The Tea Party wasn't talking about default because they were saying the treasury would just have to make cuts elsewhere in order to keep paying off the debt. So, this S&P rep couldn't be talking about them.

Now, most reasonable people recognize this for the absurdity it is. While the Tea Party may be correct, to even suggest putting the treasury in a pick-and-choose situation really isn't much better than suggesting default. To use an analogy, the Tea Party was suggesting we test the edge of the metaphorical cliff, whereas the Obama administration was wanting to steer far and clear from such a posibility. So how is it that the S&P rep was talking about the Obama administration and not the Tea Party?

Back to the original point, Obama needs to drop this idea that he needs to avoid demonizing his political opponents. First, there is nothing wrong with TELLING THE TRUTH about who the villian is in the story (as pointed out in the Westen piece). Second, even if he tries to portray himself as the "adult," his opponents are going to keep acting like children. I think most parents (which I am not) realize that acting like an adult around children does nothing to stop them from acting like children. Yet, this seems to be the approach Obama has been taking and will continue to take.

"What Happened to Obama?"

This is on the opinion piece in the New York Times by Drew Westen. I actually read this one week ago today, but am only now getting it into a blog post.

I don't have a lot to say on it, other than I found it to be a very good piece, and I recommend everyone read it. Cenk Uygur covers much of the important parts, so instead of taking a bunch of time writing myself, I'll direct you to his video instead, which you can see at the bottom of the post.

The one thing I will actually write on are the two parts that I have personally found most disappointing with the president.

1. "Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements”...with “entitlement cuts”... But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling."
2. "The president is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation."

In short, it has become hard to know what Obama stands for because he doesn't seem to stand for anything! Just like on this debt ceiling issue--he said he wanted revenue increases, but then accepted a "deal" (in which Republican John Boehner "got 98% of what [he] wanted") without those increases. So does he really want revenue increases or not? Now he's been out around Iowa on this recess telling union workers that they need to sacrifice one minute (as if they haven't already sacrificed), and then saying (after Warren Buffet asked for his taxes to be increased) that the rich need to share in the sacrifice. Yet, we have failed to see the rich sacrifice. It's been the middle class and poor (groups that contain union workers) that have seen all the sacrifice. Mr. Obama, if you're going to say that the rich need to sacrifice, prove it by fighting to increase their taxes!

It's broken because they want it broken

In an earlier post, I discussed right-wing pundits complaining about liberals throwing money at problems and how what they really mean when they say that is they have no desire to fix the problem.

Another such area is public education. I often hear from the right-wing how our public education system is "broken." So, what is their solution? Voucher programs! These do at least 3 things that conservatives like:

1. Saves the wealthy money. Many wealthy people already send their children to private schools. Voucher programs will put money back into their pockets.
2. Promotes private business. As the vouchers would be used to send children to private schools, those schools would stand to increase their profits off of such a program. This is good for anyone invested in the school.
3. Promotes Christianity. To weasel out of any 1^st Amendment violations, it is a parent's choice for which private school to send their children to. However, there currently are a lot of private religious schools. There may not really be a viable choice between a religious and non-religious schools. (And many conservatives probably want it to stay that way.)
   Note to conservatives: Realize that if you are going to allow vouchers to be used in Christian schools, they can also be used in Islamic schools. I know how many of you freak out over Islam. Or are you trying to push your holy war agenda even further?

The scary part that people need to be aware is that conservatives are intentionally trying to undermine the public education system to push their agenda. There approach is really only a three-step process:

1. Pin/focus the blame on some factor outside of political control.
2. Defund public education while focus is shifted.
3. Repeat.

For step one, they are putting the blame on teachers. Other factors, as Lawrence O'Donnell discusses in the video below, includes home learning environment, the student's personal expectations, the student's parents expectations, class size, class environment, etc, etc, etc. O'Donnell blames it on an anti-union agenda, which could certainly be part of it, but I certainly think it is also part of their pro-voucher agenda.

I grant that there are some poor teachers out there. But has it occurred to people that we may have a large number of poor teachers (assuming that we do for the sake of argument) because those who could be good teachers that would like to teach don't because they can get a better paying job elsewhere? And that this also leaves open teaching jobs to people who would not do well in private industry? Some probably have, but unfortunately, teachers have been demonized as greedy and their low pay has been justified by the crappy argument that they only work 9 months out of the year...as if they don't have mortgages, utility bills, etc. to worry about those other 3 months and as if they don't deserve to be paid well for bearing the responsibility of educating the next generation!

Step 2 should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Many schools are now rated on how their students do on standardized tests. If the students do poorly, funding for the school is cut. How is cutting funding supposed to help these schools do better? Well, go back to Step 1, and the problem (supposedly) is teachers...or even the school's administration. That's what the schools are supposed to fix...because there is no way that class size, etc, etc, etc. has anything to do with it!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Please don't fall for the conservative tricks. The public education is only flawed because people with political agendas have made it flawed!

"Liberals always want to throw money at a problem to fix it!"

The quote in the Title is near the end of the video. It was said by Margaret Hoover. The implication here is that it is bad to throw money at a problem, and this almost makes me wonder what kind of world these people live in. Seriously, in what world does fixing problems come without some type of cost? The reality is there is always some cost to fixing problems. Every problem, at minimum, takes time to fix, and, as the cliche goes, time is money. When I fix a problem at work, it takes time, time which I get paid for and time that I use up when I could have been doing something else...perhaps designing, for example. (Though, as an engineer, much of my job involves fixing problems. Fixing problems comes with the territory.) Even when I donate my time to an organization, there is some monetary consequence. (Yes, I'm considering volunteering as fixing problems for the sake of this argument. Consider it fixing societal problems.) When I donated my time on the United Way Day of Caring, my place of employment still payed me for the day, as they are a sponsor for the event. They incurred a cost even while I was gone volunteering and not doing the type of work I was hired for. Even when I volunteer on my own time, that is time I could be doing things to save myself money or maybe working a second job or even putting extra hours at my current job, which I can then use as a case for getting a bigger raise. In short, fixing problems costs money, so this implication that you don't need to throw money at a problem to fix it is absurd.

What could be seen as the more baffling part of this whole story is that this is in regards to this recommendation that birth control be freely available to the public in which there is the claim that the cost of preventing unwanted pregnancies will be much smaller than the cost of carrying out an unwanted pregnancy. In the end, money is saved, yet, these conservatives still complain.

This should lead people to the conclusion that there is something else going on here. I find that something else to actually be quite simple: They (the conservatives) don't want to have to pay anything at all, ever...which really boils down to selfishness. (Frankly, a lot of conservative ideas boil down to selfishness.) In other words, they are looking out for #1. For this case, O'Reilly and Hoover are likely thinking along the lines of "I'm a responsible person and never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Why should I pay for someone else's irresponsibility?" When they complain about liberals throwing money at a problem, it is not because they live in some strange reality where fixing problems is cost free, as I suggested in the first paragraph, but rather because they had no interest in fixing the problem in the first place. When they disregard the fact that preventative measures can actually save money in the long term, it is because, once again, that they have no interest in the problem. Any cost in fixing a problem that is of no concern to them is too high of a cost.
Also note that earlier in the video, O'Reilly claimed that "Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex..." This is setting up the idea that unwanted pregnancies are always a result of irresponsible behavior, thus reducing sympothy for the pregnant woman. Amanda Marcotte at pandagon.net has a fitting response.

O'Reilly is framing unwanted pregnancy as a woman's just punishment for being a dirty, drunken slut. He doesn't, however, explain why he thinks it's such a great idea to have women he considers irresponsible, slutty drunks put in charge of raising the next generation. This is typical anti-choice thinking---putting punishing "dirty girls" above all other concerns, including the well-being of children.

...

O'Reilly clearly doesn't understand how the birth control pill works. His statement only makes sense if you assume that the pill works by a woman taking it right before or during sex to prevent conception, which is why being drunk might make you forget it. But in reality, that's not how the pill works at all, as roughly everyone in the world over 10 years old that isn't Bill O'Reilly understands. You just take it during the day and it covers you for having sex roughly whenever, as long as you're up on your pills. If you haven't been taking your pills and you take one right before sex, it doesn't offer any protection.

There is another issue at large in this discussion. Many conservatives are also moderate or fundamentalist Christians, the type of Christians that demonize the use of birth control. Even if freely available birth control makes sense (and it does), they will fight it as it goes against their religious dogma.

The 14th Amendment does not force the USA to pay its debt!

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on Constitutional law! What the heck are you doing thinking of getting law advice from a blog?!? :)

For anyone who doesn't live under a rock, you have heard this idea floated around that "Obama could cite 14th Amendment powers to tackle debt limit." I had just assumed that this was correct. I don't have the Constitution memorized, and I trusted who I thought would be experts on the matter. Well, then today I heard people saying that this idea is completely bogus. I tend to agree now that I have actually read it for myself. The text in question is as follows:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

This just seems to be clarifying what debt belongs to the US and what does not. When you put this in its post-Civil-War context it makes sense. Consider this hypothetical scenario - During the Civil War, the South borrows money from, let's say, Spain. After the war, when the South has been reunited with the Union, Spain comes by asking the US for its money back. With the 14th Amendment, that money aided a "rebellion against the United States." Now the US can ask, "What money?" And Spain might be all like, "The money we loaned you." And the US will pronounce, "You didn't loan us any money." To which Spain will respond, "Yeah, we did. We loaned it to some of your southern States." Now the US can send them away with an, "OHHHHH!!! Well, see, that money went toward funding a rebellion, which has been squashed. That debt belongs to that rebellion, not us. Be on your way, now! Oh, and good luck getting your money back." (Which is really telling them that they are not going to be getting their money back.)

In summary, I suspect the idea of that section is for the US to determine which debt from the Civil War belongs to the US and which belonged to the South, which the US government probably figured it wasn't obligated to pay back.

Where I think people go wrong is that they stretch this obligation to recognize ownership of debt into an obligation to not only repay that debt, but to do so in a timely manner. To clarify, I agree that if you own debt, you are obligated to pay it back eventually. However, I don't see this as an enforcement on making a payment on its scheduled due date. Missing a payment is not the same as denying ownership. Therefore, missing said payment is not a violation of the Constitution; we are still admitting that the debt belongs to us. Much like if I were to miss a mortgage payment...I am not suggesting that I no longer own that debt or am no longer obligated to pay back that debt. I still intend to pay it back...just not at the present time.