The Friday Bacon

So it's come to this: a slight, indirect defense of W.

Friends, poor men, countrymen, lend me your beers! Cause I need to kill off the rest of my braincells after my most recent rage induced aneurysm.

As we all know, the U.S. economy is like a fish flopping on the dock right now. It is gasping and flopping. It isn't dead and gone, though, and, if good catch and release practices are used, it will be swimming once again. However, there is still the possibility it could be carved up for a lovely Chinese dish, too.

And, like in any good political crisis, pundits and office holders on "both sides" are blaming one another. As Obama's time in office drew further away from election day, the memories of the conservatives faded. They could not remember that the crisis started under Bush's reign (of terror.) So, they began treating Obama like the new Hoover, and blaming him and his Democratic allies for the recession. Not being a dullard, I never bought into that. I am ot saying they have done some great job responding to it, but they certainly didn't bring it about, they weren't in office yet.

So, naturally, I took a bit of the "other side's" argument to heart. That being, Bush and the Republicans pushed through too much deregulation which allowed these greedy bankers to cut corners and make unstable investments. It makes sense. Bush is a "free marketer" and the investments at the heart of the collapse were investments that could not have been done under old rules.

Now, I don't know if deregulation caused the recession; I know far too little about economics and the banking system to make that claim. It is a good topic for debate, because there are compelling arguments both ways, and discussing and challenging each other on important issues like that is what we should be doing. What I previously thought was indisputable though, is that it was Bush and the elephants that pushed through deregulation. I am sure they did to some degree, it would fit their M.O.

However, I recently read that under the Clinton administration, working with a Republican majority Congress and some turncoat Dems, repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. The act was designed to keep investment and lending banks separate. I have never liked or trusted Clinton, politically, or Democrats in general. And the less said about Republicans the better. But I at least thought there was some sort of guiding ideology to them. Sure, they both work to screw us all over, but in different ways.

I boil over thing of all the liberals out there bashing Bush ( and Regan) for deregulation when it seems it was there beloved Bill Clinton who took a very important and far reaching step in deregulation. I am sure Bush would have done the same repeal if it hadn't already been done, but he didn't do it. It was Clinton. So, let's bash Bush for the treasonous things we know he did, and stop applying blame to him for everything wrong with us now. That makes him a scapegoat, and we all know who famously used scapegoats.

Oops, thread over.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

I think this is hydrogenated vegetable oil made to appear to be cheese and mixed with bacon.

The Friday Bacon

Thats Bacon floating on top of a can of Bush's Baked Beans. Photo snapped while camping.

It's For the Childeren

Desert Bus for Hope is going on right now. Its part of the Child's Play charity holiday blitz.

Here at the Fringe Element we blog from Wisconsin and Ohio. I have also noticed that most of our readers come from Texas, or that's where you have your proxies. The point is that Child's Play has partner hospitals everywhere and you can give to whatever local children's hospital is in your area.

Go there and donate now.

The Friday Bacon

A burnt bacon tragedy.

The Friday Bacon

Had a bacon and eggs breakfast that was too much to finish. These are the remaining bacon strips calling to me but I was unable to eat them.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

The United States Post Office

I think that the Post Office under charges for first class stamps. I am talking about the regular stamps you use to send a single regular letter, or in most cases a bill.

Here is my reasoning: Once, a few years ago, I was spending an evening with friends and we ordered out for sandwich delivery. Upon looking into my wallet I discovered all I had of any value was $2 in cash and four $0.37 stamps. I announced my cash situation to the group and asked if anyone would cover me. One offered to do so, and because I am the kind of person that does not like being in debt (even for $4, and even knowing I will pay it back tomorrow) I asked my friend if he would accept the stamps as payment of the debt. He asked essentially if the stamps were of the current value saying, "I put one of these on a letter and it will get delivered?" I replied, "Yes," and he agreed. So essentially I exchanged $3.48 in value (plus delay and uncertainty and lack of interest) for a $6 sandwich(plus tip).

The next step in my reasoning is what my father always told me about collectibles but extends as a rule to the entire economy. Something is only worth what you can get someone else to pay for it. The inverse of that principle is best exemplified by Starbucks, which has gotten people to pay ridiculous prices for coffee.

If you stop and think to yourself about what the Post Office actually does and their relation to the reality of communications technology, the Post Office really offers a premium service. If you need to get an original physical document or object to another location, that is a premium service given that it is such a rarity. The problem with that is that it is a rarity and if the Post Office raises their prices too much too fast then they will have fewer customers and those customers will be sending fewer things.

I really think the value of a stamp is somewhere between $1 and $2. What actually charging that value would mean to the operations of the Post Office is another matter. Unless situations like the one I described above start becoming common, where stamps are being exchanged as currency for three times their value, I think it is unlikely we will see large increases in the cost of a first class stamp.

The Friday Bacon

This appears to be an abomination unto the lord. Now I understand why Lucifer was called The Morning Star.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

I am sure you have seen this out on the Log Cabin somewhere. Originally a joke, but the visual design of the product is excellent.

The Friday Bacon

Ya just stick your arm right in there, it doesn't matter.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

The Daily Show used this as a punch line several times. I am not sure why bacon flavored mayo is the perfect example of American gluttony. Especially when we have naked jello wrestling.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

Bacon wrapped chicken breasts stuffed with mozzarella cheese.

Beer prices rise for the Consumer as Costs of Production Fall and Profits Rise

A number of brewers announced recently that the price of beer that the consumer pays will be going up citing rising costs. In the CNN story above the reasons given are less vague. The brewers claim to be raising prices to offset rising commodity prices and fall in volumes. Though, commodity prices have fallen recently and have caused farmers and dairies to worry about staying profitable this year. Also, ten days ago Anheuser-Busch InBev announced that their second quarter profits had grown despite the drop in volume because of cost cutting measures. One has to work through the maze of business doublespeak in these non judgmental articles regarding price increase and increased profitability to understand that cost cutting and "synergies" in these cases refers to job cuts as a result of the InBev takeover of Anheuser-Busch.

If you are the kind of person who likes to buy American and support American jobs, it is getting harder and harder to find an economical beer. Though some of the big brewers still employ Americans.

The Friday Bacon

That's supposed to be a cheeseburger with a pound of bacon on top. I have no idea what that crap around the bottom is.

The Friday Bacon

Breaded fried cheese wrapped in bacon!

The Friday Bacon

I saw this sign trampled on the ground so I took a picture of it with my cell phone.

Gygax Statue

It has been two months since a non-bacon article and I break our silence to announce that Gary Gygax's widow is planning on erecting a monument to his greatness in Lake Geneva, WI. The article is sparse on details, but I assure you that if the opportunity presents itself we will place whatever fund raising widget they create on this website as well. I have not been to Gen-Con since WOTC took it from Milwaukee and created several clones, but I may just have to go to the 2010 event if there is going to be hoopla about the Gygax statue.

The Friday Bacon

Extra greasy bacon

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

Fried bacon with gravy for dipping. Can you feel your arteries hardening just by looking at the picture?

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

I guess this is what it looks like when you cover one of those bacon weave mats with cheese and roll it up.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

Bacon wrapped hot dog with cheese.

Tazing Grannies

The video embedded in this story from MSNBC has been heavily edited but I think the screams of the granny speak for themselves.

I still find this incident disturbing, and the actions of the deputy immoral, even though there may be a reasonable person out there that could answer our standard question with a "yes." But that all depends on how you frame it, and whether the taser is supposed to be a less lethal substitute for the officer's pistol.

If you frame the question as whether the use of the taser saved lives in this incident, a reasonable person could answer in the affirmative. If you ask whether the deputy would have had to resort to use of his side arm or lethal force if he were without his taser, the moral calculus changes.

Dismembering Justice

In my last article on the torture conducted by the Bush administration, I may have left out another important reason for a full and complete reckoning for all involved at every level of government. It was in my last article I explained why I understand that Obama won't prosecute the agents that carried out the torture. To reiterate, we need our agents in the field to be able to do their jobs without worrying about the outcome of the next election and whether their actions will become unpopular.

However, of course that was the plan of the Bush administration all along. It now appears that from the beginning they planned on denying any responsibility for the torture by arguing that they had only asked how far they could go legally and it was the nefarious Department of Justice that told them to torture. Though, the new information seems to indicate that those lawyers were pressured to produce opinions that indicated torture was legal.

Given the amount the DOJ was politicized by the Bush administration it is highly unlikely that any advisory opinion that emanated from that DOJ was free of undue influence. Also, why would the DOJ have generated this opinion if it werent asked? And why would the question have been asked if it werent abundantly clear what the "correct" answer was?

Though if you believe the story being sold to us by the former administration through MSM is true, that every lawyer "consulted" by the Bush administration agreed that the techniques were legal, that does not make it so. The DOJ does not make the law. Congress makes the law. And Congress has made torture illegal. As I have explained in my previous article, waterboarding and the other techniques used were and still are torture.

Spc. Zachary Boyd

This photo has made the rounds in the MSM and blogosphere by now, and has become iconic. I just wanted to point out something that has not been explicit in all the media attention. Spc. Boyd, seen here fighting in Afghanistan, was 11 years old on September 11th, 2001.

Those of us who have been adults for the entirety of the intervening time span can easily forget how long it has been. But the people entering the military now were children when this all started and their world has been shaped by this conflict.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

A burnt bacon disaster.

The Wisconsin Crazy: Dog Tazers Cops

The story provides precious little in actual details, so I think my headline falls just short of yellow journalism. After a man had finished his meal at McDonald's with his sleeping service dog the manager summoned police who then used pepper spray and a tazer on the seizure prone man.

I hope they didn't use the particular type of pepper spray that catches fire when combined with a tazer.

Again the article offers little in the way of details, we can only hope someone took a cell phone video so we can know more about the altercation. And can corroborate the story the cops gave. I am sure it is just as reasonable as all the other stories of the police using force on a disabled person.

The Friday Bacon

Trying out techniques to keep the bacon from burning.

Tortured Logic

As Daniel Schorr indicates, it is absurd that the current dialogue regarding torture is focused on whether and when it is OK instead of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.

I should probably start out with the basics and define torture. Especially since ambiguity over what is and is not torture is abused by armchair nationalists to cloud the debate.

"torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Art I, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Or if you prefer U.S. law:

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

18 U.S.C. §2340. The definitions are substantially similar in the act that constitutes torture is the infliction of severe suffering, though the U.N. treaty requires a particular goal in mind they both define torture as the act of a government. So clearly, any argument based around the ambiguity inherent in the word "suffering" designed to imply that imprisonment qualifies as torture is disingenuous at best. Any reasonable person would agree that water boarding fits under this definition as torture. The argument that the presence of a doctor during waterboarding changes it into something other than torture because the victim is less likely to die cuts decency to the quick. The blatant disregard for both the legal definition of torture and the suffering of the victim lays bare that anyone making such an argument has no respect for those the argument is being made to.

One might raise the argument that such legal protections only extend to uniformed soldiers captured on the battlefield. This ignores the clear intention of the above convention which indicates that it is the goal of the person performing the torture that makes the act illegal, not the identity of the tortured subject. It's simple common sense to say that if we have the jurisdiction to hold a person then they are under the jurisdiction and protection of our laws regardless of whether we find it convenient. Further, though the United States Supreme Court has not decided this narrow issue yet, it has decided a line of cases that a rational person would think extends to cover this situation (a rational person being one who has not set out with the goal of achieving an end result where torture is justified). In a line of cases from Ex parte Milligan to Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court has held that even the detainees at Guantanamo Bay fall under the protection of U.S. law and that they can not be deprived of fundamental rights like Habeas corpus. Also, that Congress and the President, even working together cannot simply declare certain people and places to be without those protections.

Though it is yet to be determined if the prohibitions against torture apply to non-uniformed foreign national enemy combatants captured in a foreign country, we have frequently tried to make a clear argument on this blog that the protections of the law should apply to these people. I have tried to make this argument by making the implication that any innocent American citizen could be taken to Gitmo. Of course, any time someone implies that the government could wrongfully imprison an innocent person the notion is labeled as X-Files type conspiracy lunacy. Which is why I have tried to be careful and point to situations that show how easy it is to be mistakenly labeled as a terrorist. Where the no-fly list includes the names of innocent people, or where police label nuns and peace activists, that they admit are innocent of any crime, as terrorists.

If you combine the fact of how easy it is to become labeled a terrorist or an enemy combatant with the fact of how difficult it has been for those in Gitmo to even contest that label, even when they have been found innocent by their own government, you see that torture is being used on people merely for being accused of being a terrorist, having not been found guilty in any court, merely because there is the possibility that they may have some information that could be obtained through torture that could not be obtained as quickly through more conventional interrogation. Even when good old fashioned investigation still works. I am not so foolish as to believe that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent victim of circumstance or that there aren't dangerous terrorists being held there that can never be released without representing a serious threat to the American people. I am just worried about the labels being used and logic being applied to justify locking people up for an indefinite period of time punishing them without the accusations against them(and their accusers) seeing the light of day and I am particularly uneasy about the U.S. torturing anyone, especially in such suspicious circumstances.

Still Cheney is making the political talk show rounds insisting that torture produced valuable intelligence that saved lives. This argument is being picked up and repeated as if anything Cheney says about intelligence to the media can be trusted after the fiasco that was the run up to Iraq and the Valerie Plame scandal. It has even been revealed recently that torture was even used to produce some of that bad intelligence that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. security council.

This is exactly the worst case scenario that comes to mind whenever there is mention of torture. There was no ticking time bomb and the poor sap being tortured didn't know anything and only gave the people committing the torture what they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. That bad information was relied on to put us in an unnecessary war and thousands of people have died. Yet the idea that torture produces effective intelligence continues to be tossed around like it is a valid argument. Even if torture produces good intelligence some of the time, the risk that bad information will be relied on because it is what is politically expedient at the time is far too great a risk for us as a nation to be throwing our morality to the wind.

Even if torture works it is still morally wrong. Unfortunately I don't have any arguments here, just a bald assertion of a moral absolute.

I could argue that Alberto Gonzales was clearly wrong at his confirmation hearing when he said we can never be like our enemy's. Or I could parrot the refrain that being seen as abandoning our collective principles encourages extremist anti-Americanism. Or I could point to the damage this does to our international relations. Friendly nations wonder why we have fallen from being Regan's shining beacon of freedom on a hill, and antagonistic nations like Russia and Iran point to our abuses when we criticize them for kangaroo trials or oppressive measures. I could point to truly oppressive regimes across the globe that now simply label as terrorists those they wish to abuse. However all those are pragmatic reasons, and I don't think that is the best foundation for a moral absolute. I know torture is always wrong because I have human compassion. And you know it too.

All that is beside the point. Torture is illegal and water boarding is torture. The only reason I can think of that the MSM has allowed itself to be hijacked by Cheney again is that Obama has decided that the people who committed acts of torture under color of law will not be prosecuted. So that ends that story. Only vague questions of conspiracy remain and the question still appears to be open as to whether those that wrote the torture memos and the members of Congress and the Executive branch who were complicit in authorizing torture will face any kind of consequences.

It is vitally important that we zealously prosecute everyone responsible for the use of torture from the interrogators and their commanders and guards at the camp that knew it was happening to those that wrote the memos and everyone in power who knew it was happening and did nothing to stop it. even if that means throwing half of Congress in prison. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, a full and complete prosecution of everyone responsible will correct many of the above mentioned pragmatic reasons that torture is wrong. Clearly extremists will continue to hate America for irrational reasons. However, by taking pains to correct our misdeeds we will show to friends and enemies internationally and future leaders of America that we are a nation committed to the rule of law and that we can bravely face our own misdeeds and see justice done.

The next reason is that only a full prosecution of everyone that could possibly be complicit is the only way to actually see justice done in this situation. Where the government at all levels and in multiple branches participates in enacting a broad policy that is illegal and immoral and actually produces negative consequences simply rooting out a sacrificial lamb like "Scooter" Libby only perpetuates the sense that those in power who are ultimately responsible for the crime are beyond justice. A full prosecution is also important to avoid domestic political wrangling. If we put Cheney on trial Pelosi needs to go on trial as well. So does every member of Congress that was briefed on the use of torture and everyone in the various agencies that used them, both political appointees and career agents. I am not saying that we need to imprison half the government and military, but in the interests of justice there needs to be a full and impartial investigation that brings charges against those who appear to be guilty of serious crimes against U.S. law.

I understand Obama's order that the interrogators not be prosecuted. Spies and agents in the field are not legal experts and have to be able to rely on the orders of their superiors. Unquestioning reliance on the command structure is vital to successful military operations. Still, there is a point where the guy who has boots on the ground knows something is wrong. That an order is wrong. It is that person's responsibility to say "no." I know it is a hard and cold and frankly unrealistic rule but that is the very same thing we say to accused former Nazi prison camp guards as they are extradited and prosecuted for simply guarding the camp. (No I didn't just fall prey to Godwin's Law)

I further understand Obama's decision not to prosecute the interrogators because doing so would turn our agents in the field into political paws by using them as a sacrificial lamb. An agent in the field has to be able not only to rely on his orders but also to believe that he can effectively carry out his mission even when there is an election coming. They need to know that they won't be hung out to dry just to appease the public when the party in power changes.

Because prosecuting the interrogators is off the table and it is highly unlikely that Congress will enact legislation that could put their own members in prison, and because there is a current sentiment that we need to move on with current troubles and not be concerned with the egregious acts of the prior administration it is highly unlikely that we will see any kind of full and non-partisan investigation that results in justice being done. The most we will see is someone like John Yoo getting a slap on the wrist. I am still too cynical to believe even that will happen.

New Primate!

Some scientists discovered a new extinct species of ancient monkey in Germany. Of course, some in the MSM have already started masturbating all over this story trying hard to make it about creationism. It's interesting to me that even supposed liberal bastion MSNBC is putting creationism buzzwords like "missing link" into the mouths of scientists.

Pay

As a result of the media focus on the crash of a commuter flight in Buffalo, NY it has been revealed that pilots starting out and breaking into the industry make about as much as the girl at Starbucks that hands you your coffee in the morning. Add on to that, the fact that the pilots work long days at a job that it is critical they maintain focus and composure and you get a mild national shock.

I was surprised also. I really shouldn't have been given the nature of corporate America that pays the people that actually do the work a pittance while the executives who have never worked a day in their lives rake in exorbitant salaries. Still when you think of a pilot, its the one job that you wanted as a child that even from adulthood still looks like it has the least chance of turning out like the soul crushing office work you wound up doing.

Now more than ever we need the minimum wage to be set to the actual living wage. There really shouldn't be a distinction between the two. Congress should act now because the old argument that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs doesn't fly when companies nation wide have already cut their staff down to bare bones, cutting labor down to workers with essential functions and then cutting just a few more. There aren't any more jobs to loose.

You might still be foolish enough to believe in the American Dream, that hard work pays off, or you might be an aspiring corporate raider and make the argument that this still increases overhead of even small businesses. Sure it does, but you are willfully ignoring the big picture. To be trite, the rising tide raises all boats. If everyone is being paid a living wage, suddenly you have a surge of new consumers that have never had disposable income before. They are buying their coffee from Starbucks instead of from Maxwell House, which increases the dollars in circulation and increases profits and liquidity.

Of course this only happens if Starbucks, forced to increase wages, doesn't increase the price of their already overpriced coffee. Theoretically this could cause an increasing spiral where the costs of goods is increases commensurate to the increase in the minimum wage creating an runaway spiral of inflation. But that's where the other market forces come in. First, not every company will simply raise prices to artificially keep wages low. In our global mega corporation economy where even the store brand discount paper towels are made by the massive conglomerate that makes the costly brand name ones it is easier for such companies to spread any cost increase out over a large population and over time. This doesn't even have to turn into a situation where Congress is robbing the rich to pay the poor.

This was what we once got from unions. We have them to thank for the weekend and the forty hour work week. Unfortunately now they have turned into a punchline about organized crime and an albatross around the neck of the poorly run auto companies. If unions want to become relevant again they need to seize on this recession and take big bold action that will carry us out of the recession. I don't see this happening. They protect workers who don't work and see themselves as the enemy of management. Even worse younger workers have to pay dues into the union and get little out of it by being relegated to the worst jobs not by the company but by the union that is supposed to be looking out for them, and they still get crap wages because the union had to sell out the decent wages of new employees to maintain the benefits of the retired.

That being said, I have worked for companies that hate unions, ones that just aren't unionized, and ones that have a large powerful union and ones where the union is a minor impact on a portion of business, and I have seen that the big powerful unions still have a beneficial impact on more than the quantifiable benefits and wages one gets.

Finding a New Dealer

With the announcement that GM and Chrysler will be slashing their dealer networks over the coming weeks it is obvious that thousands of family owned small businesses will be going out of business. This will of course exacerbate the current recession. Clearly this will cause a similar chain of events that the auto giants threatened us with when they blackmailed Congress into bailing them out. The dealers go out of business, sending their employees out into the street and into unemployment and into the worst employment market in decades. Auto repair technicians who were making a middle class living will now be changing your oil at Speedy Lube for minimum wage. This cuts into the spending power of the community at large, and greatly reduces local tax revenues, which are already having the carpet pulled out from under them because of the housing market collapse. I hope you are getting ready for monthly garbage pick up instead of weekly because as the purse strings tighten municipalities all over the country are going to start looking as dilapidated as Detroit and Cleveland.

The closing of auto dealers also helps to worsen the recession by directly adding to the liquidity problem that got us into this recession in the first place. All those acres of cars that the dealer can't sell anyway will not be packed up onto trucks and hauled back to the manufacturer. Oh no. These cars will continue to sit in your dealers lot.

The dealer doesn't own those cars either. The dealer has huge loans to keep those things on property. The longer they sit there the less profit they make. More seriously for the rest of us though, is the probability that these cars will now be sold at fire sale prices by dealers desperate to unload unpopular merchandise and avoid bankruptcy. Which is exactly like those assholes that were flipping houses in Vegas and Atlanta. Except auto dealers know how to unload cars and house flippers couldn't tell their own ass from a hole in the wall.

The real threat is that banks might wind up owning these unwanted cars. That's something no one wants so hopefully they will all see their own best interest is in making credit available to dealers to keep the cars profitable and by making auto loans available to buyers so the dealers can unload these heaps of smoking steel and glass on us. Somehow I don't see that happening, and what we end up with is a sub prime mortgage and credit default swap sundae with bad auto loan sprinkles.

The Friday Bacon

Those of you who wear glasses like me know of the fog of bacon fat that coats your lenses after cooking bacon. You also know that its a bitch to get off.

The Friday Bacon

You can just feel the love and care that went into constructing this fried marvel. Clearly it was built for some grander purpose other than mere consumption. It sets the mind to wondering what marvelous meal came from such dedication to salted fat.

The Ongoing Torture Debate

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

It is unfortunate that the most complete and honest debate regarding the current state of affairs as it surrounds the use of torture by America was on The Daily Show.

Republicrats: Shifts Toward Blue

Why do my favorite Supreme Court Justices keep retiring? First it was Rehnquist, then O'Connor, now Souter. They were my favorites for writing intelligible opinions. Lawyers learn to write and use language partly to obscure their meaning. These justices seem to indicate to me that it is possible to be a brilliant and principled legal scholar and still be capable of being understood.

This would be my only comment at Souter's announcement of his impending retirement except for the political cast it takes on given the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democratic party which also occurred this week.

This article picks up on the greater significance that this has for the Republican party, especially given Specter's admission that the Republican party today is not the one he joined when he defected from the Democratic party. Like most of ABC's reporting it misdiagnoses the state of public opinion.

ABC paints this as being a division between moderates in power and conservative ideologues. I think this makes the inexplicable mistake of lumping fiscal and social conservatives together as one group. Well, i suppose it is not entirely inexplicable since this is the fundamental misconception of Karl Rove's political strategy that is misconstrued as appealing to the base.

Clearly the idea of going after the base is meant to be cast in contrast to Reagan's "Big Tent," particularly after the separation of the Libertarian wing of the party under Perot. But those of us who are truly Libertarian, not just fiscally but socially as well, understood Karl Rove's strategy as one of appealing to hot button right wing extremist issues that were rarely voted on before.

This whole strategy of appealing to people based on irrelevant emotional issues such as religion, national security, and immigration creates a misconception that conceals the true voting motives of "Blue Dog Republicans." This was something both Clinton and Obama picked up on in the last election and is why Ohio and Pennsylvania went blue. Sure there were narrow margins but it is illustrative of the problem of confusing propaganda with substance. The campaign propaganda to the MSM claimed these people were the base of the republican party but in truth you can only get so far by appealing to base and divisive emotions.

Now the Republican party is saddled with the burden of politicians that were elected for running socially right wing campaigns in a place and time when that would fly. This segment of the party is going to remain entrenched in its black and white social issues and while they may eventually learn to understand general notions of governance their presence at the table is going to continue to confuse the party at large about what went wrong in the last few elections.

In a political system where those that represent the people are forced to choose between two ridiculous characters of public opinion this does a tremendous disservice to real people who won't be stuffed into one of the two categories by Fox or MSNBC.

The Friday Bacon

The Friday Bacon

So do I baby, so do I.

Guns on the Border

With people turning to gun violence during times of desperation and with the recession increasing incidents of desperation the MSM has been covering incidents of gun violence frequently lately. Of course in the MSM this topic always is an opportunity to discuss gun control. At the same time the Obama administration has been discussing gun control in relation to Mexican drug cartel violence on the border. In the MSM this leads to discussions that assume the return of the Brady Ban. I get the feeling that this is a wag the dog situation. Especially since it seems that reports in the MSM of violence on the boarder are inflated beyond all proportion.

My suspicions are raised even more that the MSM is just getting their gun control rocks off when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says that a renewed assault weapons ban would not be effective in reducing Mexican drug cartel violence.