Using our highway system for its original purpose

With the exponentially increasing military budget and the ever-present need for rebellious young cargo plane pilots to cruise the streets with reckless abandon, this was bound to happen.


Reference for authenticity

Seattle vs. Jakarta: The Monorail Challenge - Part 6

I've posted Part 6 in my ongoing quest to figure out how the city of Jakarta can build 16 miles of monorail for 1/3 the cost and twice as fast as Seattle can build 14 miles of monorail. This part deals with the traffic in Jakarta. Exactly how bad is it?

Giving the Saudis the Finger...Slowly

My future father-in-law is a serious car guy and an expert on alternative-energy solutions. And most importantly, since his retirement, he's had a lot of time on his hands. His latest creation, in conjuction with his colleague Joel, is now up for sale on Ebay (if link doesn't work, search in Ebay for 'Metro Diesel').

It's a Geo Metro that runs on a Chinese-built Changfa motor.

This car isn't exactly suitable for regular city driving, but it does run for about 4 hours on a gallon of fuel (going about 45MPH on flat ground; hills, not so good). The car is located in the Portland area, and sorry, they won't provide shipping. The highest bid as of 10PM Sunday night is $102.50, and the auction ends on 12/5.

Reload Caption Contest

Also, this picture made me laugh.

Looking forward to Hypocrisy '08

So why does Kerry want to be president?

The reason is almost tautological: John Kerry wants to be president because he is John Kerry, and John Kerry is supposed to be president. Hence his campaign's flummoxed and tone-deaf response to the swift boat vets. Ban the books, sue the stations, retreat, attack. Underneath it all you can sense the confusion. How dare they attack Kerry? He's supposed to be president. It's almost treason in advance.

It's not enough to believe you should be president. Clueless mortals need some hints. Is he motivated by a broad ideological agenda? There's no Kerry Doctrine, no Kerry Approach, no Tony-Blair-style "third way" gambit. There's just Lurch, lurching.

James Lileks - August 26, 2004

Yes, absolutely (I would like to be eligible to run for president). Why not? With my way of thinking, you always shoot for the top.

Arnold Schwarzenegger - October, 2004

Anyone think Lileks will have any doubts about Schwarzenegger's motivations for the Oval Office if he becomes the candidate in '08?

Flashback Friday

Here's a Slate post from November 26, 2002 by ELMERFUDD on the UN resolution to disarm Saddam.

The bottomline to all that is currently transpiring between the USA/UN/Saddam can best be summed up in this way and with this prediction:

The UN will allow itself to be an accomplice in the foot-dragging "compliance game" now begun and being waged by Saddam. This charade will last only until the US decides enough is enough and makes up its mind to end it.

Prediction going well so far...

Just as the US is about to conduct its 1st strike against Saddam the UN will "discover" its backbone and decide to sanction the use of military action to disarm Saddam.

The first cracks appear in Elmer's prediction. I don't think the UN discovered their backbone after the invasion as much as they discovered their middle finger.

If the events transpire as described at least member nations will be on the hook to assist in both the work and cost of cleaning up the mess afterward.

Evidently Elmer was raised by people who cleaned up after him. Unfortunately, those of us in the responsible real world do, in fact, live by the 'Pottery Barn' rule.

However, what I fear is the UN, by FINALLY coming on board to disarm Hussein, will want to dictate the terms of a ceasefire and final outcome. Their track record in this regard is similar to that of their resolution enforcement - it sucks!!!

George Bush would give his left nut right now to be in a position where the UN could come in and dictate a ceasefire.

Thanks in large part to the demands of the UN, in 1991 we did not move into Baghdad to complete the job that we are having to complete now - at no doubt a MUCH higher cost in terms of military resources, American/Iraqi lives, and money.

Right, it would've cost less lives back when Saddam still had some WMD's.

There is really very little to suggest that the nations of the United Nations are actually united!! The goals and values of key member states are often NOT parallel to our own. And this has been made abundantly clear with respect to issues involving the safety of the American people and the security of America itself.

Welcome to reality, Elmer!! Hopefully in the past two years you've figured out that nations are NEVER all on the same page. And countries that want to stay the most powerful in the world need to understand that, or deal with the consequences. And right now in Iraq, we're dealing with those consequences.

All you need to know about Camden, NJ

Quote of the day:

"I don't know why they say Camden is so bad. It's just drug dealers killing other drug dealers." - My 86-year-old grandfather, and former Camden business owner.

Happy Thanksgiving

I'm thankful that modern technology is enabling a new exchange of information and ideas that has never been possible before. It has become the most powerful tool that progressives have ever had to network, plan, organize, and win. Here are a few of the things going on in this new sphere of the internet that I'm thankful for being aware of.

The reason I originally started this blog was that I read Mein Kampf and it really opened my eyes to the roots of fascism. Dave Neiwert at Orcinus is putting together a collection of his posts pertaining to the current rise of Pseudo Fascism in the United States.

Cyndy at Mousemusings has set up the Orifice of Homelandabsurdity, to track corporate corruption and abuses of power, and to provide better organization for fighting back.

Pete at Drug WarRant has a detailed explainer about Monday's Supreme Court Case of Raich vs. Ashcroft.

And this post, which is just brilliant.

Thanks, and have a great holiday weekend!

USS Navy One?

There has been some buzz over the US thinking of getting a Presidential Yacht. Few knew that the US used to have one, the USS Sequoia (you would expect USS Navy One to sound cooler). LBJ used it as a prison ship for Congress. Jimmy Carter sold it off because it was a tad too "imperial" for his taste.
The UK used to have a Royal Yacht. The last time the Royal Yacht was used was for the handover of Hong Kong and it was later sold. I guess the HK handoff and sale of the yacht signified the end of the British Empire. What does this mean for the US? What do you think this administration will name the presidential yacht?

Stashing Up for the Second Term

Cartagena, Colombia - November 22, 2004 - After realizing that four more years in the Oval Office would require holding another handful of Press Conferences, President Bush stopped off in Colombia for a few hours on Monday to pick up a brick of nose candy to make his occasional squaring off with the media's most obedient eunuchs more tolerable. The President's visit was accompanied by 15,000 Colombian security forces, backed by warplanes, helicopters, battleships, and two submarines, who were all tasked with preventing the media from pointing out that the Drug War is killing people, costing boatloads of money, and not working.

As Bush settled into the private meeting room with Colombian leader Alvaro Uribe, he quickly got down to business. Reaching into his coat pocket, Bush pulled out a Frequent Smuggler Stamp Book that he found while rummaging through his father's old CIA files. "Got a freebie comin' my way, Alfonso," he said.

Uribe looked at the book of stamps and replied, "These guys have been out of power for 25 years, I'm not honoring this. And it's Alvaro, jackass."

After some negotiating, Uribe agreed to honor the stamp book, but only after Bush agreed to loan him his Presidential Yacht for the month of August, a time when Bush just walks aimlessly around his ranch.

Bees attack defenseless schoolchildren

Story here

As panic spread, several students turned back and went home, leading to poor attendance in the school.

This reminds me of my youth, when I was occasionally attacked by chipmunks. I'd usually take the day off.

Chicken Little or Reality?

I'm no economics expert, but I can't see any way to put a positive spin on this article I saw over at Eschaton.

Roach met select groups of fund managers downtown last week, including a group at Fidelity.

His prediction: America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic ``armageddon.''

Press were not allowed into the meetings. But the Herald has obtained a copy of Roach's presentation. A stunned source who was at one meeting said, ``it struck me how extreme he was - much more, it seemed to me, than in public.''

Is Roach paranoid or is he just one of the few people on Wall Street that acknowledges the dangers behind the current trends in the price of the dollar, our excessive spending in Iraq, and the massive deficit?

Profiles in Cowardice

After watching that clip of Colin Powell singing YMCA at the ASEAN conference in July again this week, it dawned on me that it may have been the most courageous thing that anyone in the Bush Administration has done in the past 4 years. I really can't imagine Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney having the courage to do that in front of a crowd, let alone fighting in a war, something that Colin Powell is the only one of the three to do as well.

Standing with Rumsfeld and Cheney at the other end of the courage-cowardice spectrum is Chris Davis, a member of the 87th Stateside Keyboard Division who writes for the Men's News Daily. The Men's News Daily is an online publication that is similar to Maxim except that it's incredibly stupid and their "babes" are not very hot. Mr. Davis wins the Concrete Dildo this week as he shows off the skills he learned in Microsoft Word bootcamp in this article called "Kill ‘Em All, Let Allah Sort ‘Em Out". Here are the highlights:

One U.S. Marine, a cameraman, and a terrorist. The marine, acting in complete self-defense, fired the round into a terrorist pretending to be dead. Seconds later, the terrorist was dead, and now part of the mosque’s décor.

Now, as with Abu Ghraib, any Iraqi victim is obviously assumed to be a terrorist. It's possible he was, it's much more likely that he wasn't. The question that matters though is how many Iraqis will think he was a terrorist or how many will think he's just one of the many thousands of Iraqis who want us out of their country.

What do you get when you add all of that up? A compulsion to run with the tape. The mainstream media had President Bush now. This will get him impeached.

Quick question, Chris. Who decided that there would be embedded reporters in Iraq? Donald Rumsfeld or the New York Times? If the mainstream media was trying to get Bush impeached this way, do you think Rumsfeld would allow it, Einstein?

Somehow, the liberal press would have you believe that this poor, unarmed, Iraqi civilian would still be alive had this trigger-happy Marine not gunned him down in cold blood.

Actually, that's true. He would still be alive. That's what happens when you don't shoot someone.

If we are to believe this Iraqi man is an innocent civilian, then what was he doing faking his death? Why would a civilian caught up in the battle not cry out for help?

Uh, maybe because he thought that the Marine would shoot him, jackass?

Especially when help was right there? Because he wasn’t an innocent civilian, and he wasn’t an “insurgent.” He was a terrorist assassin out to kill Americans, period.

So your theory is that in a situation where American soldiers invade a mosque, the "terrorists" will act one way, and the "insurgents" will act in a different way? Are you sure you want to stick with that logic?

He could’ve been booby-trapped. He could’ve had a hand grenade in his hand. There is a myriad of possibilities that could’ve led this marine to shoot him. Speculation at this point is a typical senseless agenda.

Right, like speculating that he was a terrorist? Or speculating that Kevin Sites is trying to get Bush impeached?

This shouldn’t have even made the news. There should’ve been cheers for the marine for doing his job.

Make up your mind, dude!

Since the days of Watergate, liberals have been trying to remove conservatives by scandal.

Conservatives never do that to liberals though.

Could America have survived World War II and Korea with the meddling press corps we have today?

Once again, the press is there because Donald Rumsfeld wants them there!

In those days, we would’ve leveled everything; anyone that didn’t get out of the zone would’ve been part of the landscape. Now, with precision weapons and an overly sensitive press, we exercise caution at every little nook, cranny, and mosque.

Of course we do. This is nothing like World War II. We're occupiers trying to rebuild a country, not invaders trying to bring down a regime. That part ended last April, moron. What it takes to "succeed" now is very different and doesn't involve indiscriminate killing.

We’re spreading freedom throughout Iraq, which will help to stabilize an extremely volatile area of the world. These assassins operate on one kind of mentality: “Kill ‘em all, let Allah sort ‘em out.” Which is why a terrorist—one that was injured from earlier fighting—was playing dead.

Once again, an idiotic rant from an idiotic chickenhawk ends with the predictable mantra that we're "spreading freedom" throughout Iraq by killing a bunch of people. Many of us who opposed this war do understand that this Marine was in a difficult situation and probably shouldn't be punished harshly for what happened. The amount of stress that these soldiers are under is significant, and should be considered when looking at how to handle this situation, but people both here and there have to understand that we're not "spreading freedom" in Iraq by making people afraid of our presense. And no, Chris, even an innocent Iraqi civilian would be playing dead in that situation, just as your cowardly ass would be if an Iraqi soldier charged into your church and pointed a gun at you.

Semper Fi, marine.

Whatever, mouse jockey.

Reload Caption Contest

Fighting everywhere

In March, Vancouver Canuck Todd Bertuzzi sucker-punched some guy who had put a cheap shot on his teammate. In September, Texas Ranger Frank Francisco threw a chair into the stands hitting fans. In October former-Yankees Jeff Nelson and Karim Garcia settled assault and battery charges steming from their fight in the bullpen during the 2003 playoff series between NY and Boston. It was last sunday, the 14th of November, when William Green (noted for being stabbed by his baby's mama) and Joey Porter (who's missed games for a gun-shot wound) threw punches before the Browns-Steelers game. This was the background for the Pacers-Pistons game on friday night, the 19th. After Piston Ben Wallace shoved Pacer Ron Artest after a foul, there was a scuffle between the players which appeared to settle down. Artest, while lying on the scorer's table, was hit with some object thrown from the crowd. Artest immediately charged the crowd, followed by teammate Stephen Jackson. Artest slammed some fan to the ground and chaos ensued, with players in the stands and fans on the court. But the physical exchanges between the players and fans was crazy. The NBA bosts the best atheletes in the world and these guys were throwing big, valuable hands at fan's faces. The wildest was Pacer Jermaine O'Neal's sliding punch to some Piston fan who was on the court. Very accurate and athletic move by O'Neal. But when the following day, yesterday, a fight breaks out during the 4th quarter of the South Carolina-Clemson game, it does make you take note.

There have been increasing conflicts between players and fans (and between players and players) over the last several years. The increasing tension in this country is going to spill out somehow. As they say, there's no justice like mob justice. It will be interesting and scary to see just how things proceed.

The Subjectivity of being an Eyewitness

U.S. Marines fret over Fallujah resurgence

U.S. Marines reportedly are concerned there will be a resurgence of militant activity in Fallujah if troop numbers are reduced for reconstruction.

Here's another article that describes this in more detail. Because of unrest in other places, the U.S. troops don't have the troop numbers to stick around in Fallujah and establish a peaceful rebuilding of the city. So essentially, we've accomplished nothing in Fallujah that won't be undone as soon as everyone returns.

However, some senior military officers in Iraq and Washington cautioned the assessment is a subjective judgment by some Marine intelligence officers near the front lines and does not reflect the views of all intelligence officials and senior commanders in Iraq, the newspaper said.

Of course! You can't trust the people on the ground. They can't see what's going on at all! It's the people in the cushy chairs in Washington that really see everything.

Actually, it's the people on the ground that have figured out that to be successful, we have to stop thinking that we're in a giant game of 'Capture the Flag', and remember that we're supposed to be rebuilding the country, not demolishing it. Now I clearly realize that people like Al-Zarqawi are an impediment to making that happen, but attacking a city that he had plenty of time to escape from is clearly not helping.

A (possibly final) call to the Seed

The word on the street is that our weekly gathering at the Seed may not happen any more after this week. The election has made our traditional Happy Hour routine seem a little out of place these days. A group of loud, diverse, well-traveled folks gathering in a bar with cheap baskets of hot wings and pull tabs. Around our table, all kinds of languages are heard, from Japanese to French to Arabic. There have been times when our discussions have gotten political, and those around us could've found the things we said offensive. In all that time, though, our presense was tolerated, and our patronage was appreciated.

But now it feels different. The election made a lot us feel like we're an unwelcome minority. It has exacerbated a divide between those of us who have a world view based on actually having seen the world and those of us whose world view is based on stereotypes, fed to us through a media that avoids nuance. The British lament at how little we, as Americans, understand the rest of the world, but when they decide to tell us that, Americans just respond based upon their own silly stereotypes of British people.

A lot of people are asking themselves now, how do we change this? How do we win the battle to get people to recognize the fact that what the British (and the rest of the world) thinks does matter, and that it does affect us?

I disagree with a lot of what I hear from some on the left today about dumbing down the message to appeal to those that don't know the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia. Those of us who wanted a change in the Oval Office this year were right to demand a change. Just because that didn't happen doesn't mean that we need to start believing in different things. It's a challenge, but I think it helps to realize that we're sometimes focused too much on the wrong things.

At Reload, we like to pick on the religious right a lot. But these people are not the reason that George Bush is still in the White House for another 4 years. The reason that Bush won is because, to the large numbers of Americans that see the world in stereotypes, John Kerry fit the stereotype of the weak Frenchified liberal. Not all of these Americans are stupid either. Many of them just never have this stereotype properly challenged. So even among those that don't mind gay marriage and abortion, or would prefer that we not run huge deficits, many were still voting for Bush, because with a war going on, you can't have a windsurfing Frenchman in the Oval Office.

If we want to get out of this sad state of affairs, however, we can't let our stereotypes of these voters affect our ability to change their stereotypes of others. These people are not as dumb as we make them out to be, and they're nowhere near as radical or closed-minded as the small subset that does deserve to be ridiculed. For now, it looks like the Reload crew will be doing the first of the five stages of recovery by ourselves. But I hope before too long that we can do the last four stages drinking alongside our NASCAR-loving friends.

Appealing to my Tribal Instincts

Before the election, I received some mail from former New York Mayor Ed Koch encouraging me to vote for George W. Bush and to join a group called the Republican Jewish Coalition. I've never met Ed Koch, nor have I ever registered as a Republican or asked for any Republican organizations to send me mail. However, I do happen to have a very common Jewish last name. Mr. Koch felt that it was necessary to tell me, an assumed fellow Jew, that if I care about Israel, I should be casting my vote for George W. Bush.

Now, of course, I do care about Israel. A branch of my father's family lives outside of Tel Aviv, and I've spent a large part of my adult life learning about the history of the Jewish state. Like a lot of Jews, I started off from the position that Israel was right in this conflict because the people I'm related to, no matter how crazy, cannot possibly be wrong about something so important as war and peace. Of course, after repeatedly getting my ass handed to me in online discussion forums by people who actually knew what they were talking about, I eventually came to the realization that in the world's greatest clusterfuck, there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

Our President, on the other hand, hasn't reached a point where he sees the conflict for the complicated situation that it is. Bush has used language that shows a respect for the idea of a Palestinian state, but so far, it's been nothing but talk. The United States stands by Israel even when the entire rest of the world does not. And when the greatest opportunity to make real progress towards a Palestinian state became available, after the fall of the Taliban and the retreat of Al Qaeda, we attacked one of Israel's enemies instead. Our power in the world, along with Bush's unconditional support, allows the Israeli government to be able to do whatever they want and laugh at the United Nations' rebukes. They've become our spoiled child who has no real incentive to be responsible with their actions. And for that reason, the Israelis know that they can get away with walling the Palestinians into a non-viable state, rather than doing the responsible thing and building a wall that supports a realistic two-state solution, something that a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians hope to see.

Living in the United States has certainly been helpful in my ability to understand this issue in the proper context, and to be able to place blame on the Israeli government whenever it's deserved. If I'd been surrounded by other Jews with a similar upbringing all this time, no one would've challenged my thoughts enough for me to break away from my earlier belief that Israel was a victim that deserved our unconditional support in everything they did. This difference is evident in the fact that only 22% of American Jews voted for Bush, but 62% of Israelis would have.

This kind of tribal mentality is a universal trait for all ethnic groups, but all too often, it opens the door to a hypocrisy among those that find benefit from playing the victim. Take David Horowitz for example, who has criticized the idea of black reparations because it's "one more attempt to turn African-Americans into victims", but then writes an article on Israel whose title starts out "Why Israel Is The Victim". Many Republicans accuse Democrats of playing favor to the black community so much that African-Americans no longer feel compelled to be responsible, even while those same Republicans support doing the same with Israel.

Any group of people can come up with a long list of ways they've been victimized over the years, but it takes courage to rise above that and understand that the future should not be about getting retribution from the past, but about doing what you can to make sure there are less victims in the future. The United States has always been the bright light showing the world how to do that. And now, I wonder if Ed Koch wants to keep it that way, or if it's time for all of us to divide back up into our separate groups.

The Tinfoil Hat is Off Still Nearby

After some discussions with individuals more familiar with me over how voting machines work, and after learning some more about ES&S and their ties to both prominent Republicans and to Diebold, I'm once again considering a re-entry into the Tinfoil Hat range on the possibility of widespread election fraud in Ohio and Florida.

This post on Democratic Underground is speeding up the process:

We began to compare the special printouts given to us with the signed polling tapes from election night. Lo and behold, some were missing. We also found some that didn't match. In fact, in one location, precinct 215, an African-American precinct, the votes were off by hundreds, in favor of George W. Bush and other Republicans.

From the way I understand it, if there was the kind of widespread fraud that some suspect could've thrown this election (and that I believe is technologically possible), it would be very obvious to anyone who compares the numbers on an ES&S or Diebold machine with the ballot records at each individual precinct. This seems to be exactly what Beverly Harris and the folks at BlackBoxVoting.org are finding when they've been looking at the Volusia County data (and dealing with the many obstructions to their work).

The bottom line is that if there's a full recount in Ohio, we'll know for sure, and it's better we know for sure what happened than to allow this to become a source for conspiracy theorists over the next four years.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan for President!

I think a constitutional amendment changing the natural born citizen phrase for who can be President would be a great thing! All though the change is being called out in California for Arnold we need a larger focus. I Call on all Americans to change the constitution so that Dr. Muqtedar Khan can be the next president of these United States!



Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Adrian College in Michigan. He earned his Ph.D. in International Relations, Political Philosophy, and Islamic Political Thought, from Georgetown University in May 2000.

There may be hope in the south

This is a direct copy of a letter an old prof of mine sent to something called the Sunday Chronicle. As he is from NC originally, there may be others who share his perspective:

What Moral Values?
Recent editorials in the Chronicle have cheered the triumph of moral values in the November Presidential election. Talk is cheap. Georgia and South Carolina boast two of the highest infant mortality rates in the country (8.6 and 8.0 per 1000, respectively), almost double those of northern "blue states" such as Massachusetts and Vermont (5.0 and 5.5 per 1000, respectively). The percent of children living in poverty is now twice as high in Georgia and South Carolina as it is in liberal-leaning Minnesota and Connecticut, and teen birth rates in Georgia and South Carolina are three times those of Vermont and New
Hampshire.* If we have such strong moral values, then why do we have so little to show for it?

*All data from KIDS COUNT 2004

Time for Serious Praying

Lesson #7 – This lesson comes from work. I’m not used to hearing fellow believers at my place of employment but today I had evidence that the movement is growing. An unknown individual, talking on a cell phone, walks past my office and says: “Will you have time to do some serious thinking and praying?” This is an excellent phrase to use on children, wives or any significant person in your life that needs correction. This will keep their minds focused on Heavenly issues and ultimately force them to do what you desire. Remember Ephesians 5:22 – “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”

From the Fallen Reverend
Viva la Theocracy
Get on board or…..

'Diamond' Jack vs. 'That Darn Wall' between Church and State

UPDATE: This site is a hoax, and the most subtle and bizarre one I've ever seen. Nice work...

According to Game Theory expert "Diamond" Jack Holgroth, our current U.S. flag is not sufficient for conveying the undeniable fact that our nation's founders were fundamentalist Christians that demanded that God be shoved down everyone's throat, and so he has this proposal.

The current Flag of the United States of America (for the benefit of non-Americans and poorly educated Public School graduates). While beautiful, an ignorant foreigner might mistakenly suspect we were Astrologists or some sort of Stripe Fetishists instead of proper Christians.

Therefore, he would like the flag to be changed to the following:

And he explains himself

Some may protest the idea of changing Old Glory as prima facie un-American; this is, however, an historically ignorant point of view. The Flag has undergone numerous design changes over our Nation's history to reflect the changing shape of America. Every new State admitted to the Union has brought with it a redesigned American Flag. Throughout all this change, the basics of the Flag's design have remained true to the original vision of our God-fearing forefathers. Our proposed Godly U.S. Flag keeps with this tradition by leaving the original design undisturbed, only adding to its inspired beauty with the name of He Who inspired it.

Actually, I believe our forefathers didn't fear God as much as they feared people like "Diamond" Jack.

Fortunately, some people pointed out to our friend here that these changes would be in violation of U.S. Code, to which Jack responded:

While it is true that currently the Godly Flag cannot be used without violating US Code, this does not preclude its use in the future. Once the Godly Flag is adopted as the official flag of our Nation, Section 8g would no longer be an issue since the word "GOD" would then be as much a part of the flag as are the stars and stripes.

The logic is breathtaking, and keep in mind that he teaches Game Theory.

He finishes with the following footnote:

Some of the more Liberal may argue that the word "God" is disrespectful of our nation's Mussulmen who worship Allah. In fact, "Allah" is just Arabic for "God" and so there is no real conflict. Since we are an English-speaking nation, it is most appropriate to use God's English name, hence "God".

But, of course, the atheists, Hindus, and Buddhists can find another goddamn country to call home.

The Hardee's Monster Thickburger

Just when you thought the calorie escalation wars were over, you turn around and see that Hardee's is introducing a 1,420-calorie burger. I don't know what to say to that, except it apparently made the stock rise by a percent.

Now if they can only add some health care benefits for a modest price, I think they will really have something...

Beavers are fun...

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter before you get to the response letter.


SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County

Dear Mr. DeVries: It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity And a review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994,being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2003.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely,

David L. Price, District Representative
Land and Water Management Division


Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries: **

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County.
Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 12/17/02 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.

I have several concerns. My first concern is; aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English.

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2003? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

THANK YOU.
RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS


This post test is taken from http://www.ramdac.org/article/id/42. For what is it worth, I looked up the address and it does sit on a pond some 30 miles from where I used to live.

Beavers officially exceed humans in awesomeness

Suprisingly, humans build stuff the same way: link

Incidentally, if you ever get a chance to see the Imax movie "Beavers," do it. It's actually one of my favorite movies (nerd that I am.) They show how two beavers take a stream and forest and turn it into a lake over the course of a couple of years. Totally amazing.

Cretotrigona prisca on asteroid impact: "not so bad"

It's been awhile since I posted any bee-related news, but this one's a doozy. It seems the bees of 65 million years ago were very similar to their modern counterparts -- who are picky about temperatures. Yet, the bees survived the nuclear winter that is thought to have come along with the asteroid. So clearly the bees needed some sort of winter clothing. And that is how yellow jackets came to be.

Article is here

Between this and the CRAZY HOBBIT PEOPLE FROM MARS, in the words of Bob Dylan, the past, it is a-changin'.

Reload Caption Contest

I haven't thought of a caption yet, but this picture was taken in Japan where the Governator was trying to get Japanese people to buy more shit from California. It just reminded me of George Constanza showing up to the meeting with the Japanese TV execs with a bag of oranges. Unfortunately for him though, I think the only California industry that does well in Japan is the one he left.

How to Start a Civil War

Smoke and Corpses

I saw some Iraqi government soldiers on the ground earlier.

I don't know which part of the country these soldiers are from. They are definitely not from any of the western provinces such as al-Anbar.

I have heard people say they are from Kurdistan.

They are well co-ordinated. When the US forces pull back from an area, the Iraqi soldiers will take over there.

That's smart, flatten a city, kill loads of civilians, and then leave soldiers from a rival ethnic group to guard the rubble. We've got some real rocket scientists running this show.

(thanks to Maru for the link)

Social Security Madness

I just read this article on social security on MSNBC, after having read a full accounting of the proposed plans 2 and 3 in this report to the Senate Finance Committee by the Brookings Institute.

I remain astounded that, based on some independent analysis of the proposed plans, we are still advocating any investment accounts, or at least not reading about a capped approach which will aide the transition from full Social Security Trust Fund support. Let's dispense with the bullshit that President Bush would have us eat and just accept the fact that all of the people in this country who aren't retiring soon will eat at least some part of what we were "entitled to." Promising the American people "full benefits" from Social Security should be held as national fraud. But I digress...

The report says the following:
"One of the three Commission proposals (Model 1) would not restore long-term
balance to Social Security and is therefore not considered further here. The other two proposals substantially reduce traditional Social Security benefits in order to improve the system's long-term balance. Both models would restore actuarial balance in the absence of individual accounts."

Astounding, President Bush appoints a commission to propose modifications to Social Security and they have one proposal that doesn't even restore solvency? What the hell is wrong with these people?

The report continues:
"Model 2 does this [restores actuarial balance] solely through reductions in scheduled benefits. Model 3 covers roughly one-third of the projected actuarial deficit from new dedicated revenues and reduces scheduled benefits to close the other two-thirds of the deficit. The Commission does not recommend a source for these dedicated revenues.

The models also create individual accounts that, by themselves, would push Social
Security back into deficit. A key reason is that the amounts diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the accounts (plus forgone interest) exceed the amount by which Social Security's benefit obligations eventually would be reduced by the accounts."

Fantastic, so you balance Social Security and then push it back into debt by adding personal accounts? I am not saying that personal accounts aren't a good idea, I think they could be a great idea. But there are problems, not least of which are reductions in benefits to the disabled:

"As Robert Greenstein discusses in more detail in his testimony, the implications for the disabled are truly devastating. For example, a worker becoming disabled in 2040 would have disability benefits reduced by more than 25 percent under Model 2 relative to the benefits scheduled in current law. Many disabled workers would have little opportunity to accumulate substantial balances in their individual accounts to offset these benefit reductions, since their disability would have forced them out of the workforce and cut off their flow of contributions. Moreover, under the Commission plans, they would not have access to any individual account balances they might possess until they reached retirement age."

Further, the proposals don't really address the true issue, which is the projection of Social Security's balance:

"If all eligible workers chose to contribute to the individual accounts created under Model 2, the net effect of the accounts -- including both the diversion of revenue and the subsequent reduction in traditional benefit obligations -- would be a deterioration in Social Security's 75-year balance equal to 1.1 percent of payroll, which is more than half the existing projected deficit"

So if run its full course, Model 2 would require revenue infusion that would equate to more than half the existing projected balance. While reducing the total problem, this is far from a fix when you consider the $2.2 Trillion price tag, without provisions for protecting the disabled which would surely need to be included.

Model 3 is no better running revenue infusion numbers of between $2.8 and $3.1 Trillion depending on if you care for the disabled or not.

The point is this, reporters and the public have their eye on the wrong ball. Talking about the emergence of personal investment accounts is all well and good but they are not the only motivating factor. The true issue here is the deficit. Neither model 2 nor model 3 can adequately address the current issues around Social Security without revenue infusions in the trillions of dollars. This simply isn't fiscally responsible given the current nature of our government's spending. Take this along with declarations from Osama bin Ladin to bleed us dry and all Americans should be raising the red flag with respect to the financial outlook of our country. The ball is rolling, try and keep your eye on it...

Not even pot can make you this stupid

This week's Concrete Dildo comes courtesy of the Drug WarRant, which found this "Local View" from Sandra S. Bennett of LaCenter, WA.

Long before today's extremely potent strains of cannabis were developed, there were individuals who suffered severe psychotic episodes when smoking marijuana (feral cannabis hemp). In fact, this phenomenon was the basis of "Reefer Madness," the 70-year-old zombie movie about individuals who became crazed from smoking marijuana.

Who needs science when you have zombie movies from the 30s to get your facts from?

Today, pro-legalization partisans complain that "Reefer Madness" and the thousands of scientific studies that document marijuana's many insidious and dangerous side effects, are "just scare tactics" and insist that marijuana be given the same status as alcohol and tobacco.

Actually, we complain that side effects like the munchies and laughing our ass off at MST3K aren't much worse than the side effects of alcohol (occasional bouts of violent rage, sleeping with fat chicks) or tobacco (brown teeth, emphysema) and yet it remains illegal.

Today marijuana is so potent (compare taking 20 aspirin at a time instead of two) that it has become a leading cause of drug related medical and psychiatric emergency room episodes, impacting thinly-stretched medical resources.

Actually, I won't compare it to taking 20 aspirin, because taking 20 aspirin might kill you, but a big fat joint of kind buds will likely only make you sleep till lunch.

Several recent scientific studies have found that marijuana use can indeed cause psychosis and worsen psychiatric disorders. It also causes short-term memory loss, impaired cognitive functions such as attention and judgment; impairs coordination, balance and reaction time; increases heart rate, risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema; and increases risk of head, neck and lung cancer.

Short-term memory loss (alcohol), impaired cognitive functions (alcohol), impair coordination (alcohol), increases heart rate (tobacco), risk of chronic cough (tobacco), bronchitis (tobacco), emphysema (tobacco), increased risk of cancer (alcohol or tobacco). Any reason it should be illegal?

Male infertility is also associated with marijuana use. Studies have noted lower I.Q. in children born to pot-smoking mothers.

Myth

Pot smokers have a higher incidence of absenteeism and injury in the workplace. The unemployment rate for drug users is more than 150 percent greater than that of nonusers and drug users typically earn less.

Yeah, like that Soros slacker. Pot really kept him in the poor house.

Marijuana use contributes to delinquency and crime. Society often ends up subsidizing users' housing, food, utilities, medical expenses, and other basic needs. All of these problems would increase dramatically if marijuana were legalized because easy access to marijuana will increase use and addiction just as it has with tobacco.

Wait a second, for you to make that comparison, tobacco would've had to have been illegal at some point. And I won't point out how much tobacco use has gone down over the past 30 years.

At this point, she actually had two paragraphs of factual information (incredible!) and then the nonsense continued...

Marijuana not only plays a key role in auto accidents but is a bigger factor in trucking related fatalities than is alcohol. A well-done study on airplane pilots found that even 24 hours after smoking a low-potency marijuana cigarette, pilots could not land a flight simulator on which they had been trained.

Yes, but what about the 14 martinis they had in the 4 hours right before the test?

The impact of marijuana on American education should be of grave concern. Although tobacco has insidious long-term medical consequences and is perceived to be the greater menace, it does not interfere with the ability to learn.

And it makes you look older too!

Does anyone believe that dumbing down American students, many of whom can now claim they smoke pot for "medical" reasons, will make them competitive in the job market?

Many American students can smoke pot for medical reasons? What, is there some childhood glaucoma epidemic going around?

Special-education teachers are already overburdened with drug impacted children children who come to school impaired by second-hand smoke from the psychoactive drugs used by their parents.

What the fuck? I don't even know what to say any more...

California, with its lax marijuana laws, now mandates treatment instead of incarceration for drug users and it not only is bankrupting the system, but most arrestees don't complete treatment or bother to turn up.

Maybe the solution is not sending potheads to a treatment facility just because they got caught with pot! And it's not like locking someone up in jail costs us nothing either.

Sweden and Japan both tried legalization but suffered dire consequences and reinstituted strong drug policy. Unfortunately, society has a short memory and is often doomed to repeat its most egregious mistakes.

I'm just flat out calling bullshit on that. Neither Sweden nor Japan has tried legalization, but Holland has, and it works.

Legalization would be one of those terrible mistakes that would take generations to undo.

Actually, the Drug War is that terrible mistake that is taking generations to undo. Thanks for contributing to the tidal wave of ignorance that keeps it going.

For a more serious (and footnoted) breakdown of this pile of horseshit, click here.

Some links to check out

Sign up for the draft

New symbol for the DOJ

Chinpokomon is taking on the world in Halo2

Purple Nurple!

Click for larger picture

Faith healer to become new reproductive health chair at the FDA

Lesson # 6

“Jesus and the FDA” - Faith healer to become new reproductive health chair at the FDA

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html

“Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome.”

Correct response - “Faith in Jesus can heal your wife/girlfriend/mother in-law of her monthly bitcheyness making them better women to suit our needs. The Bush administration is so practical in its guidance!”

From the Fallen Reverend
Viva la Theocracy
Get on Board or …

Run for the Border

Niagara Falls, Ontario - April 29, 2006 - The bus pulled up to the pharmacy on Dorchester Rd in Niagara Falls today in what is becoming a routine spectacle for the locals. The bus is filled with 87 members of the U.S. Senate, who are making their third trip to this Canadian border town to pick up their prescription medicines.

The reason why they're here is because in late February, as a cost-cutting measure, the Senators were forced to give up the prescription drug benefit in their health plans. For most elderly U.S. citizens, acquiring the drugs is done online through local and state programs, but since the District of Columbia has to follow Federal Law, which still bans using the internet to buy the drugs, the Senators are forced to drive up to Ontario on this chartered bus.

"It's quite a spectacle, eh?" said pharmacist Rob Donaldson, who is surprisingly healthy for someone who lives in a country with cheap drugs, socialized health care, and ice hockey.

The Senators themselves have grown to enjoy the bi-weekly trip, especially since they realized that even with the cost of transportation, the amount of money they save on Viagra is far worth it. Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who takes an assortment of drugs that help him walk, talk, and chew gum simultaneously, is the first one off the bus. Donaldson and his co-workers fill the prescriptions, only being held up occasionally to explain to some of the Senators that even if they got a prescription for marijuana, they probably wouldn't be able to bring it back. "That sounds like a stupid law," replied Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, eliciting a shrug from Donaldson and a sample of some Canadian wit. "Well, then why don't you change it?"

After the Senators collected their loot of cheap medicine, the Democratic Senators gathered in their usual place in the back of the bus, looking forward to two more weeks of a heavily medicated existence as obsolete members of the United States Government. "Good thing we let market forces drive our health care system," joked Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, "I can't imagine how expensive these drugs would be if we had Canada's system."

Yassir Arafat (1929-2004)

A lot of people are going to try to define Yassir Arafat in terms like terrorist or hero today, but the lesson of Yassir Arafat is that he exploited those who saw conflicts in those simple black and white terms for his own gain. The more that people over the years saw the conflict in the Palestinian territories in such simple terms, the more his power among Palestinians increased, the more he was able to antagonize the Israelis, the more corruption he got away with, and the more everyone in both places slowly became poorer. The lesson of his life is not why he decided so many times to choose war over peace, but why so many Palestinians followed him down that path. It's a lesson we need to learn before we make those same mistakes again with someone else.

IQ Test

I think this speaks for itself, though I haven't yet checked the source of the data. This particular image came from the Howard Stern website:

Understanding Bin Laden's Strategy

Pericles at Daily Kos has a tremendous write-up about how we're playing right into Bin Laden's overall strategy for defeating us. My only nitpick is that I don't buy into the idea that Al Qaeda purposely refrained from attacking us before the election. I actually think an Al Qaeda attack before the election would've given Bush an even bigger win, and I think Bin Laden knows that (and I'm not sure I would've believed that before last week either).

Cat Pictures

I got a letter from the International Federation of Bloggers (I-FOB) reminding me that I haven't posted a picture of my cats in a while. I promise this will be my last transgression.


Julius

Brutus

A Belated Halloween Laugh

With Home Star Runner as Carl Spackler

The Tinfoil Hat is On Off

Well, I've looked through all kinds of data tonight, from the inaccurate voting results online for Cuyahoga county to the different voting systems in use in Ohio to the report on the security flaws in Diebold's machines and I'm not able to connect any dots that would warrant putting on the Tinfoil Hat. That's not to say that there wasn't a lot of disenfranchisement and sneaky tactics to make it more difficult for people in urban areas to vote, but I don't see any way to explain how the exit polling was so far off from the actual vote. And that's always what's been the main mystery for me (and will probably remain that way).

Four more years of failed leadership? Bring it on. I can take it.

Time to put on the Tinfoil Hat?

I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but like a lot of people, I was curious at why the exit poll numbers we were seeing on Tuesday out of Ohio (and a few other states) were not matching up with the actual results being reported out of each of the precincts. It's even more suspicious that the state where the exit polling didn't match up were also states with e-voting machines. Reload reader TABS has sent me a series of links that describe the case being made by those that feel that something was not quite right with the voting. There is no smoking gun in any of this, but I hope to be able to find the questions we should be asking to get from suspicious data to any actual evidence of widespread malfeasance, if it exists.

The two main states that are under suspicion are Florida and Ohio.

In Florida, the main evidence seen so far is a chart showing that in many counties with small populations, there were large discrepancies between the percentages of registered Democrats and Republicans, and who actually voted for the candidates representating that party. On the surface, this looks very suspicious, but is actually not a big surprise. In most rural areas in the South, there's been a large shift from supporting Democrats to supporting Republicans, and the same wide differences were also seen in 2000. The more troubling evidence, though, is a chart showing the results from counties with between 80,000 and 500,000 voters. In counties with touch screen voting, the percentage difference between the expected vote and the actual vote was random. In counties with the optican scan voting that fed into a centralized PC that tabulated the results, the percentage of votes for Bush were much higher than the expected vote in nearly every county. That is certainly a red flag.

In Ohio, author and Columbus State Community College Professor, Bob Fitrakis, has written a summary of the events in Ohio. Most of what Fitrakis has found amounts to voter suppression tactics that happened on and around Election Day, but provides little insight as to how the exit polling would not have matched up to the actual results there. Elsewhere in Ohio though, there were two other events that have drawn attention. In Gahanna, a suburb of Columbus, President Bush was given 4,258 votes from a precinct where only 638 people voted. And in Warren County, northeast of Cincinnati, county officials cited terrorism as a reason to lock down the county administration building during the vote count, keeping the media out during the process.

On a national level, this story is starting to get some attention. Keith Olbermann at MSNBC has talked about it, several House Democrats are seeking an inquiry into the irregularities, and Beverly Harris of Black Box Voting is filing a substantial Freedom of Information Act request. We'll see where any of that goes, but there are still way more questions than answers. The situation in Gahanna appears isolated, and Warren County used punch cards, so even if there were some tampering there, that alone wouldn't have thrown the election either (but should of course be investigated). If there was some statewide issue, though, how could it have been done? For each county that uses the type of E-voting systems that used a centralized PC, the kind that Beverly Harris showed was simple to tamper with, there still must have been a large effort by voting officials to comply with the fraud and keep it secret. I don't see that as being likely in a swing state like Ohio, even if Ken Blackwell wanted it to happen. That leaves several other possibilities.

1. The centralized PC was programmed to revise voting numbers as it received tallies from individual precincts

2. The Opti-Scan machines that were feeding into the centralized computers were programmed to skew the results it was sending

3. There were individuals who were able to hack the modem connection between the individual precincts and the centralized server

I've had trouble convincing myself that any of these three things would have been easy to do, either from the standpoint of keeping it secret, or from technically being able to pull it off on a large scale. My mind is open on this, but I'm still not convinced. The things to look at right now are getting companies like Diebold and ES&S to open up their source code for public scrutiny (this shouldn't even be an issue for something as important as voting machines) and to get to the bottom of how the results in Gahanna became skewed by so much. I don't think that anyone trying to rig the election would've been dumb enough to produce voting results showing Bush with more votes than votes cast, so something else happened there, and it's strange. If there was code in either an E-vote machine or at the centralized server that was skewing the election results, was this a result of a glitch in that code? Or was it just an innocent bug in machines that were supposed to be tested, but really weren't?

The Next Crusade

The Next Crusade
The Bush administration's rhetoric is plainly directed at drawing evangelical Christians - and others looking for a good holy war - to their crusading banner. Make no mistake about it - this is the next war between Christendom and Islam. There is a terrifying lesson to be learned from history. The ignorance of our nation, our electorate and our elected officials to the dark history of holy war between Christendom and Islam is particularly alarming.
Forgive me for not pulling out my notes and nailing down the dates and proper numbers for each Crusade, but consider some of the basic history. Muslims in the holy land during the early part of the second millenium bc were accustomed over hundreds of years to minor incursions from the Byzantine empire, the capital of which was Byzantium/Constantinople - which today is Istanbul, Turkey for anyone not up on ancient geography. The Byzantines occassionally raided as far south as Lebanon, but primarily they made cross-border raids to gather booty. The Muslims in modern Syria and Lebanon generally beat back these attacks and they rarely if ever escalated into full scale conflict.
At the time, within what we now call the Middle East, Muslims were mostly divided. The Sunni and Shia each had also become somewhat lax in their following of the Koran, and Islamic fundamentalism essentially did not exist as we know it today. There was a significant amount of disunity amongst different Muslim factions, and the arguments over who was the true successor to Muhammad continued to split Muslims between Sunni and Shia. But many of what we call the fundamentalist ideals of the Koran itself had faded into the background. Islam had succeeded in stopping the blood feuds that threatened generations of Arabs, and an extensive period of relative peace and prosperity, including a fortunate avoidance of the death plagues that struck Europe, put the Muslims at a relative level of comfort that made excessive religiosity somewhat unnecessary.
Muslim society was far more sophisticated in terms of art, science, architecture, mathematics and high culture - none of which caught on in Europe until the Renaissance hundreds of years later. When the first Crusaders came from the West they seized the holy lands rapidly and slaughtered many "Moors." The Muslims were taken by surprise. They thought when the white man showed up to fight, it was another Byzantine raid. The Crusaders attacked with a ferocity they had never before witnessed, committing atrocities Muslims had never experienced. The European invaders were, essentially, viewed as barbarians who utterly lacked morality (sound familar?). Indeed, Muslim scholars tried to learn about and understand these strange white men, but often were put to the sword because they were leaders.
After Jerusalem fell, Muslims all over the middle east took notice. They began to unite. It wasn't long before the concept of Jihad - long since forgotten - was revived by a man who's name I cannot recall, but who was Saladin's (Salah al-din), Uncle. Jihad united the Muslim world against Christendom and paved the way for Saladin to raise a massive army, take back the holy lands, and kick the Crusaders back to Byzantium (it wasn't until much later that the Ottomans took Constantinople and later attempted to march west, take Vienna and invade western Europe, which they ultimately failed to do). The idea that dying for Islam would guarantee paradise was powerful, and it drew Muslims from everywhere into the fight for the holy land (sound familar?). Ironically, the Pope in Rome at the time caught wind of the concept and started spreading the word across Europe that anyone that joined a Crusade would be forgiven all of their sins and guaranteed entry into heaven. Young men flocked to the Pope's banner and the Crusades escalated, but the Europeans never again took and held Jerusalem for very long (if at all).

In the end, there were more than 15 serious Crusades, one of which resulted in the infamous capture of King Richard the Lionheart of England (think Sean Connery in Robin Hood), and another of which resulted in the death of one King Louis of France. The Crusades succeeded in doing absolutely nothing other than uniting Islam against the west. They resulted mostly in thousands of young Europeans dying in a strange place, far from home. In fact, the only thing that ultimately saved the west from being conquered by the Ottomans was Mother Nature. If not for a harsh winter, short campaign season, and the long march from Istanbul to Vienna, the Ottomans likely would have taken the west, and we'd all be Muslims. They failed, however, which in a sense opened the door to the later European colonialism that put the middle east square in the middle of the shit sandwich it's in today.

In short, we have re-elected a group of Crusaders who have walked ignorantly and self-righteously into a conflict they cannot possibly win. They are fighting neither terrorism nor oppression. They are fighting against Islam and a thousand years of distrust and resentment on the part of a people who are perfectly aware of how beautiful their society and culture were before the west intervened and destroyed it. Muslims have every right - given history - to want to see western culture similarly destroyed. To them, it would simply be a matter of getting even. America's leaders can't be entirely ignorant to this history. More likely they understand exactly that they are pursuing a religious Crusade. In doing so they have defiled the very concepts of liberty and democracy on which our nation was supposedly founded. Given this back drop, it is no surprise that Bush won by raising a Christian banner and saying, "follow me, kill the evildoers, surpress the gays, and G-d will love you." Welcome indeed to our new theocracy and the next Crusade.

Lessons in Theocracy Living

As a fallen fundamentalist minister it has come to my attention that many of you are sourly in need of help in adjusting to our new Theocracy. There are several news items in the last week that you may have developed an inadequate response towards. Here are some lessons that if taken to heart will help you “blend” into the masses and insure your chances of not being discovered:

Lesson #1

Helpful phrases to use in our fundamentalist state: “Praise God” , “Yes I am born again” , “I was saved (supply convincing date)” , “We serve an awesome God” , “God created this world in six literal days”, “Let’s pray about that”, “Let’s add him/her to our prayer list (referring to anyone not living the lifestyle)” , “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.” Also learn some catchy gospel tunes to hum while in public places

Lesson # 2

A Man tries to convert lions to Jesus, and gets bitten http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6396422/ why God didn’t protect him.

This guy has it all wrong. Samson with his bare hands “tore the lion asunder“ (Judges chapter 14). Daniel was thrown into the lions den by Darius the Mede (Daniel chapter 6). These are stories in the Old Testament, both these biblical figures were Jews not Christians. From the New Testament we find that Christians no longer fight animal lions because in 1 Peter 5:8 we are told to: “Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” We fight against the Devil himself. We are much stronger than the Jews. This man denied his Christian faith seeking a weaker Jewish faith and that’s why God did not and could not help him.

Lesson #3

“Texas Board of Ed member says health textbooks should define marriage as between man and woman” http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap11-05-012019.asp?t=apnew&vts=11520040913

Correct response - We are truly blessed to have leaders guided by the hand of God. As we draw together in the holy brotherhood, learning from one another, may the light of heaven shine on us.

Lesson #4

Lawsuit challenges disclaimer stating evolution is ‘theory, not fact’ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6434725/

Correct response - “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:” Exodus 20:11

Lesson #5

“Evangelicals say they led charge for GOP”

“Bush-Cheney reelection campaign was urging Christian supporters to turn over their church directories and was seeking to identify "friendly congregations" in battleground states”

“Christian activists led the charge that GOP operatives followed and capitalized upon”

“To win, Bush had to draw 4 million more evangelicals to the polls than he did in 2000”

“The rallying cry for many social conservatives was opposition to same-sex marriage. But concern about the Supreme Court, abortion, school prayer and pornography also motivated these ‘values voters.’”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6431260/

Correct response - When I meet one that is in “power” I always say: “I take time every morning to pray and study my Bible.” Then I quote my memory verse: Romans 1:26,27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly”

One can never show the slightest hint of compassion for "Sodomites."

From the Fallen Reverend
Viva la Theocracy
Get on Board or …

Why is the Monkey Confused ?

What is a just and what is an unjust war ?

After reading millions of articles about the validity of a just versus an unjust war it's time to finally tell you what I think about this..
You've heard it all: "World War II was a just war", "Vietnam was an unjust [or just] war", and "The first Gulf War was a just war" A plethora of arguments regarding the legitimacy of engaging in a technologically and terminally enhanced street fight that leaves thousand, and sometimes millions, of fellow human beings dead or, to a lesser extent, missing a vital organ.

Now, before getting into the specifics, let me state this as bluntly, and at the same time, as diplomatically as possible:
"You can talk all you want about a war being 'just' or 'unjust'. Personally, I don't think the word 'war' and 'just' should exist in the same context.
Does that make it bad ? Definetly not ! Whether you like or not (you hippie!) the great civilizations that gave us such great innovations such as democracy, communication and mathematics were built on the blood of thousands killed during myriads of 'unjust conquest and brutal wars. But the important thing is how you run the goddamn war !" (I put the last statement between quotes; but I really don't know why!) You name it: ancient Greece, the Romans, the British, the Spanish, the Portugese, the French, the Arabs, the Turks, etc..
These were all major cilizations that nurtured on wars and would have quickly withered and died otherwise.
Now, a lot of people are thinking this right now: "The U.S. went into World War II and it was a just war"
No one would argue that the U.S. engagement in World War II was justified. It was for self-defence ! There is nothing wrong with that ! If you're attacked by some thug while you're walking down the road, and you beat the shit out of him, there is nothing 'holy and noble cause' about this but there is nothing wrong about it either. Wars, throughout history, have been waged for reasons that seem quite prepostorous in light of our contemporary values, but seemed justified at the time.
The British empire fought two wars for Opium against China (lookup the Opium Wars) and the Dark Ages' Europeans went on numerous religious crusades because they were promised Heaven by the Pope. At the time, that seemed like a justified cause and was perceived as justified. It's really all relative when you enter the time dimension. Some of them did it to secure their borders (contemporary term: pre-emptive wars) and some of them did it simply for the financial value (contemporary term: secure the oil supply.
So where do you draw the line ? I guess the eternal unanswered question between those who supported the war in Iraq and those who didn't is this: "When is an attack on some certain country considered self-defence ? and when is it not ?" When I here people debating the war on Iraq on T.V. I tend to think that they all agree to disagree: they agree that on the basic premise that pre-emption is conceptually justified if homeland security is involved, but they disagree on whether Iraq was a real impending danger. Neither of these sides have any divine or concrete and solid knowlege of the Absolute Truth. Hence, the only reason why each side supports their own hypothesis is based on faith and belief in their own corresponding political leaders. It is definetly not a logical debate; it is purely an ideological debate, where no side could win over the other using pure reason !
I guess that, historically speaking, the examples of Germany and Japan have definetly served as an example, and even as a premise for the Iraq war. I really hope things had turned differently. Democracy in Iraq, theoretically speaking, is inevitable, but the question is when and whether it was worth the thousand American soldiers dying plus the myriads of Iraqi civilians who have died for the abstract idealistic pursuit of freedom. Had they been given the option of voting and the knowlege of what was going to be, would they have supported the U.S.-led war ?

On a totally different but perhaps related notion, I'd like to quote this line from a song that I have been listening to during the past weekend (in case you're curious: the song is by Roger Waters, who used to be the main Pink Floyd vocalist and songwriter, and it's on his extremely genuine album: 'Amused to Death'):
"Monkey looked up to the stars and thought to himself....
Memory is a stranger...
History is for fools...
Hold on Soldier...
And the Germans killed the Jews, and Jews killed the Arabs, and the Arabs killed the Hostages...
That is the news...
And is it any wonder ? That the monkey is confused ?"

Don't be confused and remember another one of my most favorite quotes. It's by the comedian George Carlin:
"When you're born into this world, you earn yourself a free ticket to a freak show"
My advice is: sit back, watch the news and try your best to relax !

'Freedom' anybody ? or are you just happy with the steak 'n' eggs ?

There is some random quote that I can't quite accurately remember and that is supposedly attributed to some (Nazi) Minister of Information of Germany during world war II :
"Every time I hear the word 'Knowlege' I reach down to feel my gun." (for anybody who knows the actual quote: please let me know what the precise version is !)
This is my reaction every time I hear President Bush mention the word: 'Freedom.' Even though I don't have a gun, and have never touched one, so I certainly don't reach down.
I don't know whether it's my fault or his, but I really think the word has become rather 'uncool' ever since Bush started mentioning it as an excuse for going to war.
Now, before getting into this, I need to assert the fact that, personally speaking, I think that the western system of democracy is way better than any other system that currently exists in the third world; be it a theocracy, autocracy or pure dictatorship. That being said, I really don't think this opinion is being shared by the overwhelming majority of people in the middle-east as general and by Iraqis in specific.
I think that it takes a country several significant stages to finally reach the commonly Western-agreed-upon-Eutopian concept of 'democracy'. To many people, especially in tribal and rural regions, there are moral concepts and laws that take no back seat to 'Democracy' as defined by the West. For example, in Iraq, tribal hierarchy is definetly more respected in rural areas than democracy or the abstract notion of 'Freedom'. People, especially in the West, tend to forget the fact that, even though the freedom is great, security and financial prosperity are, in some middle-eastern countries, more important than 'Freedom'.
Take Kuwait for example. This is a rich country, with more expatriate workers than natives, that still had a monarch who rules the country. They are the total oppposite of democracy, but at the same you don't hear them complain about it. Why ? Simply because, in a layman's terms, with most people earning enough to keep 'em happy, they're not worried about having a say in the country's politics.
Freedom is great; there is no question about that. But I guess before invading a country, Bush, or whoever the Enforcer of Freedom might be, shoud ask himself this question: "Would you rather have elections and at the same time face some hazards such as being mugged or bombed while you're walking down the street ? or would you rather live in an autocracy which guarantees you safety and freedom of worship as long as you don't show any signs of dissent towards the ruling regime that is a Dictatorship ?"
Freedom, again, is geat, but the question is do people want it ? And if they do, is it the same version of Freedom and democracy that is being revered by the Western world ?
I'm just wondering..

Seattle Monorail, lunacy or legitimate?

In an effort to try and educate myself about the current Monorail proposal and the opposition to it, I have endeavored to read the two most likely candidates to provide relevant information. This should compliment nicely the existing posts on this site related to the Seattle vs. Jakarta monorail challenge which thehim has been so diligently following.

www.elevated.org is the site set up to establish and track the Monorail project. The site has a bunch of links to various content ranging from fluffy monthly newletters to real project proposal details. Some of the preliminary study data is available online but the real meat of the site is contained in the original proposal and the news room. The proposal, as near as I can make it, was the original proposal submitted for voter approval and does not contain updates based on engineering issues which seem to have partially prompted the recall. While a good read of the proposal is a must, the issues here are best summarized by looking at the recall issues on a point by point basis.

www.monorailrecall.com is the site focused on recalling the monorail. The site itself is a pile of worthless drivel not befitting much attention other than political propaganda. The only piece of relevant information discussing the issues at hand is the I-83 compare document. Short on strict detail, here are the specific grievances I can name:

The Two Lines Do Not Connect
It is true that the proposed light rail line and the proposed monorail line do not meet. However, they are within a block of each other. If you have ever used the bus system here, or subway systems in New York, Paris, Washington DC, Chicago, or Atlanta (to name a few), you often need to do some amount of walking to get from one station to the next. In Paris, I walked the equivalent of 3 city blocks from one line to another, in the same station. In point of fact, any multi-line mass transit system is constructed of lines that explicitly do not meet each other and do require some amount of walking.

Is this a problem? Only for whiners. Mass transit isn't meant to pick you up from your front door and deliver you to the front door of your destination, some amount of walking is required. For those who want to tell me that walking a block to make the switch from light rail to monorail, especially when that trip may have started in Tacoma and ends in Ballard; need to take a flashlight and find a relevant argument.

Lastly, the original proposal never said the monorail would integrate with light rail. While this would be a profound bonus, it hasn't changed.

Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype.

No Shared Stations
This is addressed above. There is no shared station, which is unfortunate since it would be preferred. But again, the distance between the monorail station and the light rail station is a city block. Given the limitations on budget, construction of a shared station may have imposed significant costs. Further, this is hardly an issue that can't be solved later.

Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Unfortunate but unimportant.

Lack of Integrated Policies
This is one of the potentially most disturbing aspects of the program. The monorail governance is performed by a third party organization, not the metro-King County transit authority. Inevitably, the lack of one roof administrations can lead to mixed policy and an overall degradation of the service. However, what is important to look at here is the fact that the monorail officials are already working with the existing transit authorities to work out the details of the service.

One of the primary arguments is the fact that there will not be a shared pass or other such unification which will make ridership easier. This is simply hogwash. The monorail proposal proposes no specifics with regards to pass pricing or policies; these are all to be determined at a later date. With the opening of the monorail still in the future, it is understandable that specific pricing and structure details have not been worked out. In fact, in most organizations this is the last step before releasing a product.

What we can say is clear is that there are news releases showing joint work between the monorail and the existing transit authorities. While I take it on faith, I do assume that when the specifics of any policy are being worked out, the needs of the combined rider bases will be taken into account and as such, sensible policies will be adopted.

Assume that sensible policies are not adopted. If this turns out to be the case, there are avenues for appeal. These include targeting the elected officials on the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (SPMA) as well as targeting the King Country Transit officials. Overall, this is hardly an insurmountable barrier.

Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Unfortunate but unimportant

Incompatible Technolgies
Yep, it is true. The monorail and the light rail run on different and incompatible technologies. This has the possibility of driving up maintenance costs and certainly doesn't allow for specific economies of scale that could be derived from an entire cities use of a single technology (if any could possibly exist anyway). However, I believe this will likely not be as serious an issue as it is made out to be.

Fundamentally, the ridership doesn't care what technology is used to get from A to B. This is strictly a mode that needs to work. The specific implementation of the technology will require specific skills in order to maintain and operate, but this is true any time there is a system with multiple technologies. As an example, take our bus system. King County buses and Sound Transit buses have different makes and models. Further, some are alternatively powered and other are diesel. The net here is that technicians working on the bus system are already in a position to need to know many different types of technologies. True, some basic building blocks are the same. But this argument carries equally well with monorail and light rail.

The point is this, at the end of the day it doesn't matter when it gets the job done. A person hops off the light rail and transfers one block to the monorail doesn't care about the technologies. They care about the service which is the next talking point.

Finally, to bring it back to the point, voters voted on a monorail. We didn't vote on a light rail proposal (we did, but that was a different proposal altogether) and then have it change to monorail.

Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype

Platform Length
The monorail proposal calls for platforms measuring rough 140 - 160 feet in length and between 22 and 27 feet in width. Based on the I-83 site, the size of the platforms has been reduced to around 90 feet in length. The straight dope here is that this is a serious limitation. Stations build to this standard will likely be difficult to upgrade to a "full length" platform and the right of way costs could be exorbitant.

I think this is a classic example of where trying to stay in budget leads to short termed solutions which will degrade long term performance. One needs only look at the 520 bridge here in Seattle to see a great example of "good enough" at work. While I applaud the effort to stay in budget, this is a decision that could haunt the monorail for decades.

Determination: Specific design change. Problem waiting to happen

Single Beam Sections
The single beam sections have drawn a considerable amount of flak from critics. Even before I started looking into the monorail issues, I heard about this. Like the platform lengths, this issues is again attributed to budgetary measures.

There are five sections, depending on how you want to count it, of single beam section. The entirety of the single section track exist near the terminus at each end. All of the downtown area of the monorail is double track sections. Notable is that the single section track exists in areas where there are few stations which should speed transit and reduce possible delays.

I am not a scheduling expert, nor do I believe anyone with the I-83 camp is a scheduling expert (John Magnusson is a structural engineer, which makes him as reliable a source on the scheduling issues as I), but to say that these single section tracks will constitute a significant scheduling issue is not realistic. The trains are automated which will already make them able to follow precise schedules and allow them to make adjustments to correct for minor schedule delays (think passenger not in the door). However, the placement of the single track sections greatly reduces the overall likelihood of track scheduling conflicts.

Now the I-83 camp does have a valid point with respect to redundancy in times of failure. Any time a single point of failure is introduced into a system, you should be wary. And this will be an Achilles' heel for the system until such time that the track can be expanded to two lines. Which raises an interesting point; for light rail, addition of lines requires additional right of way costs. For the monorail, the right of way already exists and a second line can be quickly added to existing support structures.

Determination: Specific design change. Mostly hype but single point of failure is bad.

Future Expansion
I-83 proponents point out that monorail systems are difficult to expand. There is no supporting evidence other than citing other cities that have only a single line. This says nothing. There are any number or social or political reasons which could prevent additional construction. The simple fact is that lack of building does not equal difficulty of building. Show me substantive data, and I will evaluate it.

Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype

Geographical Flexibility
One of the keys pointed out by I-83 proponents is that the monorail only comes in one flavor; above ground. They point out that monorail cannot be placed at street level nor can it go underground. Fine, we voted on an above ground system anyway.

What I contest is that it isn't possible to make monorail run at ground or sub-terrainian levels. The monorail simply runs on a track, it is fundamentally different than the light rail track but that does not make it impossible to run in these ways. I am an engineer, give me a CAD program and some dimensions and I will draft it up for you.

Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype

Construction and Operation Costs
I-83 proponents have a set of graphs showing the construction and operation costs of light rail opposed to monorail. The graphs show a significantly higher cost in both for monorails than for light rail. It is hard for me to specifically debunk this as I assume the costs are correct given specific factors. Here is what I question:

1. The same cities aren't listed in both graphs, why not? Were they not as compelling in both places?
2. Do the graphs for construction costs equally measure right of way costs

Determination: Inconclusive

Summary
The net of this post is twofold. One is to point out that the issues here are not black and white. You need to dig a little and in comparing and contrasting and asking questions, you can reach an informed decision. That isn't to say you need to reach mine.

Which brings me to my second point. I have talked to people who don't want the monorail because it doesn't solve their problem. Well guess what, K-12 education doesn't do anything for me right now because I don't have kids. That doesn't mean I am not going to pay for it because when I do have a child that needs school, I want that infrastructure in place and humming.

If this specific form of mass transit doesn't help you, sorry. But look at the whole picture and rationalize that. Infrastructure is a problem in Seattle and unfortunately people want a magic bullet. It doesn't happen that way and with the electorate in Seattle asking for voting oversight at every turn, it is even less likely that we will ever get anything. The monorail is a specific remedy for a specific problem. It doesn't solve them all, and it may not be as good as light rail. But there is no specific plan I have found to expand light rail in the ways addressed by the monorail which, by defacto, makes the monorail better than nothing.

Reload Caption Contest

And some stuff to check out...

David Goldstein explains why Tom DeLay loves Israel so much

And another "success story" in the War on Drugs. (thanks to Pete for the link)

Throw down your best caption...

The Hypocrisy of Homophobia

The issue of gay marriage became a central issue to many voters in this election. With the amount of people showing up at the polls to make a statement about 'moral values', gay marriage bans passed in 11 states. In Mississippi, where interracial marriages became legal way back in 1987, it passed with 86 percent of the vote.

For years leading up to this election as well, websites like Tongue Tied have chronicled incidents of 'political correctness' with the motto that Americans don't have a right 'not to be offended'. I actually agree with that, but I've emailed Scott Norvell in the past to point out that he only mentions left wing political correctness. He responded once, and it wasn't a very friendly email.

When it comes to gay marriage, though, there is no difference. The only defense that gay marriage opponents claim for their position is that it offends them. It's 'immoral'. And if enough people find something offensive, they can ban it. Wow, that sounds like political correctness to me.

I've emailed Scott Norvell to ask him to include the gay marriage bans in his Tongue Tied blog. Here's the text of my email:

Editor,

I'm curious why I haven't seen any reporting on the election results in the 11 states that banned gay marriage. I was rather surprised to see such a large number of my countrymen unable to understand the basic principle of your site, that people do not have a right not to be offended by the behavior of others. I cherish this principle as a libertarian American, and am dismayed by the overwhelming political correctness inherent in those election results.

Thanks for your time,

The view from abroad

It's long overdue, but I've finally blogrolled Back to Iraq, a blog from Time reporter Christopher Albritton. What I find interesting is that in the past half-year or so that I've been reading his entries, he's never been outspoken about his opinion on the Presidential race. This week though, he's made it clear that he feels that re-electing Bush has done some damage to us in the world. Apparently though, a former donor to Albritton's efforts seemed to think that he was only over there to tell us how well things are going. Guess not.

From the mind of Dale Gribble

The 'BRIEF SAFE'

Calling a spade a diamond

One of the amazing things about the election result this week was that Osama Bin Laden looks like he's been at Club Med for the past year, and many believe that this actually helped Bush. I think the reasoning is that with an enemy that slick, only a straight-shooter like Bush could ever hope to catch him. On that thought, the Concrete Dildo this week goes to Arnaud de Borchgrave from Newsmax, for trying to explain how our inability to catch Bin Laden should naturally be blamed on someone with a darker complexion than Bush.

With his latest video sally, Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist, has repositioned himself as the only leader willing to confront the world's sole superpower.

That was a repositioning? What was he doing before when he attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Standing at a desk in a white turban and gold-colored ceremonial cloak, his message was clear: Not on the run but sharing the limelight with President Bush and his challenger John Kerry and hard at work as leader of disenfranchised Arabs and other Muslims seeking Palestine's liberation...

Stop right there, I'm a little confused. When we went into Iraq and took a hands-on approach to running the main industries and setting up a friendly government and police force and bombing the cities that don't go along with us, that was Iraq's liberation, right? But when Israel does the exact same thing in the West Bank, the Palestinians still need to be liberated after that?

OK, continue.

...and the downfall of the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East and absolute monarchies and emirates of the Gulf.

Hey, that's our goal too!! Cool, maybe Bin Laden and Bush should meet up and figure out how to do that together!

Yasser Arafat's passing from the world stage also leaves a revolutionary vacancy. Thus, bin Laden's latest peroration is designed to outflank Muslim moderates who failed to obtain a change in Washington's pro-Israeli, benign neglect of the Palestinian crisis for the duration of the Iraqi crisis.

Stupid Muslim moderates, thinking they could change Washington's policy through dialogue. Even a fool knows that the only way to get Washington to pay attention to you is through terrorism.

Bin Laden now knows that certain countless millions of Muslims, surveyed by the Pew Foundation two years in a row, trust him more than George W. Bush. In Muslim countries with a combined population of 450 million, bin Laden was a clear winner as a "freedom fighter" over the U.S. president. In Morocco and Jordan, two traditionally pro-Western countries, at least at the regime-to-regime level, Mr. Bush was trusted by fewer than 10 percent in either country.

I won't bore anyone with the lurid details in the remainder of the article about how Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani government are to be blamed for Bin Laden's health and Bush's unpopularity in the Muslim world, but I find it amazing this week how difficult it seems to just blame people who most deserve the blame for things. The reason that Bin Laden is so popular is because we've made his message popular, not because the Pakistanis either can't or won't find him. Bin Laden's popularity is Bush's failure, and trying to blame someone else is only going to make him even more popular. Arnaud, congratulations for contributing to Americans' gross misunderstanding of world politics. When all of this causes even more damage in the Middle East, I'm sure you'll find someone else to blame it on then too.


What's the French word for jackass?

Red, Blue, and Purple Haze

I think this is a very interesting blurb on how to start realistically looking at the red versus blue landscape.

As with the author, I think a map needs to be generated which shows the "purple" along with electoral or people percentage weighting. Another thing I would like to see is how, on a county by county basis the the increase in voter population is distributed.

America, Moral and Myopic

History will tell us what the next four years will mean for America and the rest of the world. And historians will look at what happened and be able to tell us, in 20/20 hindsight precisely why America did what is did on Tuesday. For my part I look at the political race in the country as well as the ballot proposals here around Seattle and judge, in my myopic hindsight two days after the election, that the general electorate is unable to make informed decisions.

Rather than digging for the information which would allow a decision based on the facts, be they facts which stir you to the left or right, our electorate takes the spoon fed opinions delivered by spin doctors who design campaigns which will entice but are insubstantial. As I look, I am struck by the commentary of Jon Stewart on Crossfire can fully appreciate just how much that "partisan hackery" is really "hurting America." The reduction of complex issues to red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative belies the true nature of life.

What I come to realize is that the more I continue in life, the more important the lessons are which were taught to me by my 11th grade AP American History teacher were. In that class, it was never sufficient to just form an opinion. No correct answers were ever reached by simply forming an opinion. Only the complex analysis of the morals and standards of the time combined with the careful rationalization of both sides would lead to an analysis which revealed an informed opinion.

The study of American history is actually quite apt as we look at the course of events over the past fours years. Most people know of the notion of "Manifest Destiny" and the role it played during the expansion of our nation. Many books have been written which can explain it with far more precision than I can hope to in this forum, the drive behind "Manifest Destiny" was really the notion of that white Christian peoples had a mandate to help settle and evolve the world. These notions helped us settle the continental United States and the remnants can be seen in our foreign policy as it related to Domino Theory.

The striking tell in looking at the history of the United States and the current state of affairs is the absolute moral authority with which most Americans live their lives. A simple look at the events of the past four years, with specific emphasis on the events of the past two days will tell all you need to know:

1. A worldwide hunt for terrorist or any government harboring them
2. The "crusade" to "liberate" the Iraqi people
3. the Anti-Abortion agenda being forwarded by the GOP
4. 11 states vote to ban gay marriage

While abortion and gay marriage may seem like a stretch, the net result is the same, a morally entitled people enforcing their set of ideals on others, despite the equally valid rights of the other side. In the instance of gay marriage, the right to share life with a significant other is unquestioned. But when some quality of the significant other is not what is expected by the morally afflicted, the result is a loss of equality. Worse, the loss of equality isn't recognized because of the moral pillar the ideal is rested upon. And so it becomes that the morally entitled become blind to their oppression, taking away that which they so fervently advocate.

It seems this trait isn't limited to morality. One of the things I have attacked recently is the indifference brought about by lack of foresight. I don't know the root of most of what I see, perhaps most people weren't lucky enough to have a teacher like I did, one that kicked your ass and got you to see life in a new and powerful way. I would fear to say that most myopic behavior is brought about by short term greed, the desire to neglect the long term ramifications due to the short term gain. Let me list several examples:

1. Withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty
2. Permanent Tax cuts despite an out of control deficit
3. Rushing to attach Iraq
4. Overturn of the Washington State Educational Trust Fund
5. Proposal to open ANWR to drilling

The Kyoto Treaty is what burns me the most because it is the most irresponsible. Our Presidents rationale for withdrawing from this treaty was because it would be destructive to jobs in our country. This is a perfectly valid argument and would likely have some impact. But the long term ramifications to this, posted here (note: this used to be posted on MSNBC but now can't be found. A quick look turned up this and this which could indicate that the report has been removed due to political reasons). The long term issues here are severe, costing far more that the pittance which our country would suffer due to a decrease in employment. In fact, were the current employment numbers better, this might not be an issue at all. Our guidance as a technological leader could help to significantly ease the effects we will see and reduce the possible effects which could be devastating to local economies and have even worldwide ripples which would depress the markets. Our overwhelming blindness to the complete and comprehensive facts, the social and economic issues of the rest of the world, and frankly our lack of caring is what seals the doom. In a way, this is simply "holier than thou" strong at work, a way of telling the world "We don't have the problem so it isn't ours to deal with."

And so it comes around full circle, is America capable of making informed decisions or do we simply revert to our roots of moral righteousness? With a full 51% of the country voting for Bush, I must wonder about the state of deductive reasoning and real investigative searches for knowledge. Anybody can take a political pundit at face value and spout out regurgitated propaganda, how many people can dig for the facts? I look at the center of this country, the farmers who probably don't have access to the internet or the time to look and see that on the CNN map of blue and red, those states and counties are all red. I look at that and wonder, when will the information age come? How long will it take to teach a country not just to listen, but to question?

The anonymity is over

I want to thank Erica and Sandeep at The Stranger for writing some very nice things about this blog. When I first used the name 'thehim' as my online nickname about 11 years ago, it was a spoof of the anonymity of the internet (and originally a New Order song). It's a strange feeling when that anonymity disappears.

Also, you should check out the other two excellent blogs mentioned there as well, Pacific Views and Sound Politics.

Apply now for Reload's Theocracy Mentorship Program

Reload is happy to announce that it will be kicking off a program over the next few months to pair off Blue State residents with Iranian citizens to assist them with easing into life in a theocratic state.

"The most important thing to know is that there is still free speech," says Iranian student and program coordinator Reza Jahiri, "but that the government also has its own freedom in how it deals with what you say."

The mentors will help in a variety of different subjects, from knowing how to figure out what books and movies are ok, to the best techniques in faking a devout belief in Allah (or in our case, his militant crusading son Jesus).

It's hard to wrap your head around it, but we here at Reload, after carefully reading the 'Bush Pledge', now understand that in order for our government to bring freedom to people that don't already have it, we have to make sure that the government has even 'more' freedom than us because it would be foolish to waste all that freedom on people who don't have the armies to spread it with. But we're still not sure who 'Herby' is.

For those that feel that living in a theocracy is not worth the trouble, Jahiri has some advice.

"The key to self-immolation is location, location, location. I recommend shopping centers or busy open parks. If you intend to go out in flames, make sure people see it."


John Edwards, there are two Americas. Unfortunately, ours is smaller.

Moral Values: A Decisive or divisive Issue?

Apparently the exit polls showed something which surprised a lot of people. The issue most voters thought was most important was moral values, more than terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. What exactly are those moral issues? Abortion? The death penalty? War? Gay marriage?

Hoping For The Best

I have already read about (and even personally heard) noises made from the Bush-supporting crowd about all of us needing to remember that we're all Americans first, and that we all need to work together. I won't give myself to despair, and will (with no small amount of wariness) wait and see if there really is an effort on behalf of the winners to reconcile.

So let's remain vigilant, and keep a healthy dose of skepticism about, but let's wait and see how this all pans out before we declare the sky is falling. There's no possibility of healing and good things happening if we are closed minded to rapprochement.

Our differences in views and methods are never going to go away. If Kerry had won, it would be good and (somewhat, I guess) right for those accross the aisle to keep asking the critical questions that we need to continue to ask. But we'll never be able to move forward productively if we're not willing to try to work together.

All that being said (and I do mean it), if the Republicans go on a rightwing agenda orgy, all bets are off.

When their fantasy becomes our nightmare

I was wildly wrong on my election predictions. I expected the large voter turnout to be much more of a plus for Kerry, and honestly, I have way too much pride in my country to see such a failed Presidency continue. Before this morning, it was really hard for me to imagine this group getting an endorsement from my fellow citizens. But I realize now that unlike previous years, when a progressive candidate could count on independent and young voters to make the difference, there were a lot of voters that made their way to the booth for other reasons.

I've framed this election in pretty stark terms in the past month. The harshest language I think I've used is saying that America is divided between the 'informed' and the 'uninformed'. That statement raised some ire when I posted it over at Centerfield, but the ugly truth is that according to recent polling, approximately 50 million people showed up at a voting booth yesterday still believing that the War in Iraq is going well. The battle to make people aware of the reality of Bush's war was lost. Apparently, when the Terminator stands up and assures people that there will be a Hollywood ending to it all, reality doesn't stand a chance. Americans expect happy endings.

But it's the extent of that blind faith that is alarming. Reading reports of crowds of Bush supporters reciting pledges of support for the President shows a new level of faith between a leader and his followers in this country that should be very worrisome. It should remind people of places like Cuba and Iran, where dissent becomes forbidden and the leadership is not questioned. This is what separates the first-world from the third-world, and we're not going to convince a lot of people in the Middle East to become democratic by acting like a third-world country.

The United States was founded by independent thinkers that fought for their right to be freed from coerced assent. Over time, whenever that libertarian core of this nation was challenged by those seeking more control, the ones fighting for liberty always won. That spirit carried America through 200 years of occasionally difficult times, making this country the most influential country in the world, the flagship model of a first-world economy, and the international symbol for freedom and democracy. But today, we've foolishly let 9/11 convince us that the things that made America great will no longer work. And the rest of the world is nervously adjusting to our new attitude.

I'm not sure yet how Ohio is going to turn out. The exit polling yesterday showed that Kerry should've won fairly easily, but this morning, I'm seeing new numbers that make it appear closer. I won't speculate what happened there, but I've hoped that if there were a brighter spotlight on the election this year, the Bush Administration wouldn't be able to pull off another Florida. Let's hope that's the case, and either way, let's not give up until this country once again believes in the principles of independent rational thought that our founding fathers fought for. Otherwise, the rest of the world will find others to put their faith in.

U.S. citizens with the "the right to vote" but who are not "allowed to vote" for president

This election is very important for a lot of people and individuals. Personally for me, voting today had a very special meaning, and it is not because of who I voted for... it is because I was able to excersise my right to vote for president for the first time. You see, not every U.S. citizen can vote for President. The right to vote is granted to all U.S. citizens but to be allowed to vote depends on where you claim your residency.

Before moving to the states (or the mainland), I lived in Puerto Rico, a non-incorporated territory of the United States. Any person like me, who has been born in Puerto Rico is a U.S. citizen. The currency which is used is the U.S. dollar, the chief executive is the President of the United States, and all federal laws apply. The island government cannot sign international treaties nor have delegations to world assemblies (still we do have an Olympic team and tied with Venenzuela with the most Miss Universe wins) and all local laws passed by the island's legislature must comply with the Constitution of the United States. Like any other U.S. citizen, Puerto Ricans can be and have been drafted in the military. Puerto Ricans have served in every conflict since the first World War. Still, given that Puerto Rico is not a state, any U.S. citizen claiming residence on the island (even if you where born in any of the 50 states) has no voting representation in Congress and therefore does not have any electoral votes which would allow participation in federal elections. (Washington D.C. residents where granted the right to vote via an ammendment to the Constitution). Also, as the saying goes, "no taxation without representation", most Puerto Rican residents do not have to pay federal income tax. But before you pack your bags, know that other federal taxes do apply like those imposed on goods imported into the island among others mainly concerning companies with operations within the island, plus the local taxes are as painful as anywhere else.

So, is this territorial status a good thing or a bad thing? Well, Puerto Rico's political status has kept its residents divided on the issue for quite some time. The island's territorial rights have been debated for nearly 500 years (before the U.S. took control of the island in 1898, it was under the Spainish crown). Should the island seek independence? become a state? keep it's current status? revise the current status? Via what process should any change take place- constitutial assembly, referendum, a direct vote, an act of Congress, an act of God? I honestly do not think it will be resolved that easily any time soon.

A non-binding refferendum was held in 1998- the current commonwealth status prevailed, but only to a slight margin over statehood. Independece supporters hover around 5%. However, In recent years something has become clearer to the 4 million U.S. citizens on the island territory- Puerto Rico has a clear disadvantage at the federal level where laws are passed, wars are declared, budgets are planned, money gets allocated between states and so on... There is little that the residents of the island can do, other than write to a single congressional representative in D.C. which cannot take part in congessional votes. Even some supporters of the current territorial status have begun reffering to the current political situation as a "colony"- a word long considered taboo.

Now, even if the overwealming mayority of Puerto Ricans vote to become a state, it would still be up to 2/3 of the U.S. Congress to invite the island to the club. Would this be possible?

Lets imagine Puerto Rico as a state of the union. The U.S. flag would have 51 stars. 2 Senators would be added to the 100 which now serve in the Senate. Possibly 6 representatives from Puerto Rico would be elected into the House (some state will loose representatives due to the adjustment). This could mean 8 electoral votes! (thats more than some states!). Considering how close these elections have been, and how closely split congress, especially the Senate, this could tip the scale, but for whom? Would the rest of the contry feel comfortable with bigger congressional hispanic caucasses? What about adding a state where Spanish is the predominant language (That is, if Florida or California does not earn the title first) , what would this lead to? Publics schools teaching Spanish and English? Would Guam and the Virgin Islands be asking for statehood too? Would adding another state drain the budget? This would also mean, that Puerto Ricans could also be allowed to run for president, given that to become president of the United States, the candidate must have been born in a state of the union (same reason why Arnold and Madeline Albright can't run for president). Would Ricky Martin follow Reagan's footsteps from entertainer to leader of the free world? Given the chance, would President Martin, instead of shaking his bon-bon would he bomb-bomb Iraq? Would making Puerto Rico a state spare the U.S. mens Olympic Basketball team another humiliation?

Joking aside, this morning felt great. I voted today fully aware that this single vote also impacts 4 million other U.S. citizens that could not make it to the polls today.

A Reload Endorsement

While I am presuming by speaking for more than myself here at this fine blog o' ours, I am pretty sure that the following endorsement can safely be said to be mostly representative. Yell at me if it's not. I can take it.

Vote Kerry.

Not just because the odious stink of Bush needs to be eradicated from our nation's highest office. Kerry will be a good president. He has his own brightness, ESPECIALLY in comparison to the black hole that is the present administration.

Bonus: wiping the smirk off the asshole's face when he sees he's been crushed.

Also:
Don't forget to catch the Daily Show live tonight.

The horror!

That's the only way I can describe my reaction to the latest find over at The Dark Window

When Neo-Cons Attack

I've been pretty intrigued by the recent squabble between the neocon stalwart Charles Krauthammer and the now semi-disillusioned neocon Francis Fukuyama.

In openDemocracy, there's a write up about the dispute. This is my favorite part:

Krauthammer’s almost principled disdain for European sensibilities is particularly problematic, Fukuyama argued, when one considers that “the European bottom line proved to be closer to the truth than the administration’s far more alarmist position” vis–à–vis weapons of mass destruction (WMD). “On the question of the manageability of postwar Iraq, the more skeptical European position was almost certainly right.” Despite this, Krauthammer proceeds “as if the Bush administration’s judgment had been vindicated at every turn, and that any questioning of it can only be the result of base or dishonest motives.”

Back in July, I made some similar observations about how Krauthammer sees ignorant obstinance in the French, when in reality, there was good reason for their obstinance. At least one neocon is figuring this out now.