The Fringe Element

Friday Bacon

2011-01-24T20:55:00.003-06:00

OMG it is bacon JAM! recipe

VOTE!

2010-11-02T13:13:00.002-05:00

Rayguns, Space germs, and Titanium

2010-05-08T20:37:00.003-05:00

Even in our own envisioning of encounters with an alien race, we dont perceive them as pleasant.

Assuming that space-faring aliens exist, and that they are anything like us, Steven Hawking is probably correct.

Though it was posited even in Hawking's own "A Brief History of Time" that in order to develop a space faring, interstellar civilization, any alien race would have to be peaceful enough to have not destroyed themselves or their planet before acquiring space travel.

That thought kind of glosses over the fact that space technology is closely linked to military technology on our planet. Again, we tend to envision our own forays into space as military in nature. A species need not be beneficent in order to develop technology, even if the bar is particularly high for the entry into rocket science. That society just has to be pretty large and have access to plenty of resources. Like the U.S., U.S.S.R. and now China and India.

The cold war is a particularly good example for a caviat to the above proposed rule. Sure a society has to be peaceful enough not to destroy itself with the technology that leads up to space travel but that thought is only meaningful with reference to our own history. Sure nuclear power arose in society around the same time as space travel. Space travel developed as a means to deliver nuclear explosives. And that competition produced rapid advancement of the two technologies such that both advanced cultures would have been destroyed if either was warlike enough to use that technology. But then the threshold of "peacefulness" is pretty low.

Not to mention it assumes a parallel history and a culture built around out-group antagonism.

A bunch of real scientists have similar but more intelligent things to say.

The Freedom of Speech

2010-04-23T12:31:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2010-01-22T23:34:00.000-06:00

The Friday Bacon

2010-01-15T23:33:00.000-06:00

The Friday Bacon

2010-01-08T23:31:00.000-06:00

The Friday Bacon

2010-01-01T23:29:00.000-06:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-12-25T10:01:00.000-06:00

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

2009-12-19T18:18:00.004-06:00

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

2009-12-18T10:26:00.001-06:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-12-11T10:24:00.001-06:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-12-04T10:22:00.002-06:00

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

The Friday Bacon

2009-11-27T10:20:00.000-06:00

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

It's For the Childeren

2009-11-22T21:27:00.004-06:00

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

2009-11-20T01:32:00.002-06:00

A burnt bacon tragedy.

The Friday Bacon

2009-11-13T11:30:00.002-06:00

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

2009-11-06T11:27:00.001-06:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-10-30T10:01:00.001-05:00

The United States Post Office

2009-10-29T09:48:00.003-05:00

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

2009-10-23T08:18:00.002-05:00

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

The Friday Bacon

2009-10-16T08:18:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-10-09T00:57:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-10-02T00:48:00.003-05:00

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

2009-09-25T00:47:00.000-05:00

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

The Friday Bacon

2009-09-18T00:46:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-09-11T00:43:00.002-05:00

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

2009-09-04T00:42:00.000-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-08-28T07:45:00.001-05:00

Bacon wrapped chicken breasts stuffed with mozzarella cheese.

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

2009-08-26T13:24:00.004-05:00

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

2009-08-21T09:41:00.002-05:00

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

2009-08-14T06:38:00.001-05:00

Breaded fried cheese wrapped in bacon!

The Friday Bacon

2009-08-07T06:36:00.001-05:00

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

Gygax Statue

2009-08-03T10:57:00.005-05:00

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

2009-07-31T21:30:00.002-05:00

Extra greasy bacon

The Friday Bacon

2009-07-24T08:30:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-07-17T09:27:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-07-10T09:23:00.002-05:00

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

The Friday Bacon

2009-07-03T09:21:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-06-26T09:16:00.002-05:00

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

2009-06-19T09:13:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-06-12T09:11:00.001-05:00

Bacon wrapped hot dog with cheese.

Tazing Grannies

2009-06-10T10:44:00.002-05:00

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

2009-06-07T20:52:00.004-05:00

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

2009-06-05T13:11:00.003-05:00

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

2009-06-05T00:01:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-05-29T21:09:00.001-05:00

A burnt bacon disaster.

The Wisconsin Crazy: Dog Tazers Cops

2009-05-27T21:18:00.002-05:00

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

2009-05-22T09:07:00.000-05:00

Trying out techniques to keep the bacon from burning.

Tortured Logic

2009-05-21T09:48:00.001-05:00

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!

2009-05-19T14:54:00.002-05:00

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

2009-05-19T14:16:00.003-05:00

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

2009-05-19T13:32:00.003-05:00

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

2009-05-15T09:04:00.002-05:00

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

2009-05-08T03:04:00.002-05:00

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

2009-05-02T17:05:00.002-05:00

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

2009-05-02T15:53:00.006-05:00

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

2009-05-01T03:03:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-04-24T03:01:00.001-05:00

So do I baby, so do I.

Guns on the Border

2009-04-19T11:44:00.005-05:00

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.

Of Silent Passings

2009-04-18T08:36:00.006-05:00

From The Fringe Element

I have previously mentioned how the origins of D&D are intertwined with southern Wisconsin. I have been chided, probably in response to the articles I have written regarding Gary Gygax. I have been chided for not recognizing the passing of Dave Arneson. Arneson is pictured above as the bearded guy on the left. The bearded guy in the center being accused of being the murderer is Gary Gygax.

Dave Arneson was instrumental in the creation of D&D back in the ancient days before anyone had thought of a role playing game or a character sheet, or a Dungeon Master. These words are so significant in my life that these men seem to be earth shattering geniuses. I find myself hard pressed to separate out how their original ideas have changed the face of gaming or created whole new dimensions of the paper, miniatures, board game, and video game industries.

Sadly, I never paid much attention to the names on my books which would have given me some inkling of the great men to whom I owe the many hours of nerdy squealing joy. Equally sad is the fact that often we never hear of significant people until after they have died. Arneson Died last week on Tuesday. He was only in his early 60's.

UPDATE: According to our commentator(commenter?) the man I identified above as Dave Arneson is actually Mike Carr. From my perspective this is conflicting information coming from third parties. If Wikipedia has taught me anything it is the value of verification on the internet. So, if anyone can positively identify those in the above image I will go off of that in the future. My goal was to post an image related to this article and not just swiped from Wikipedia, and thereby enrich the imagescape of the internet. However I would warn against using the images I post as a reference since it is abundantly clear I do not know who these people are.

The Friday Bacon

2009-04-17T07:42:00.000-05:00

First Person Reporting. ZOMG!

2009-04-15T22:35:00.004-05:00

There is(are?) still thirty minutes left to file your taxes as of my typing this. However here in Cleveland it may be more difficult to file your taxes than in previous years since the post office will not be staying open till midnight. At least not all of them. Only the main branch of the post office will be open till midnight tonight because of budget cutbacks stemming from the recession. Someone saw this coming and positioned an advertising blimp over the city for all the people lining the streets waiting to get into the post office. Unfortunately my camera sucks and this is all I got.

UPDATE:

There also may have been a basket ball game. But this is the level of reporting you get from a blog.

Time Warner Seeks to Destroy the Internet

2009-04-14T12:47:00.004-05:00

Like a cartoon villain, Time Warner has enacted a devious plan that promises to destroy something that brings joy to the people like you and I. If you haven't heard about this yet, Time Warner has begun testing a tiered system where they charge you by both the speed and total amount of bites you operate at in a month. If you aren't feeling outrage right now, then you don't understand what I just said.

Time Warner is attempting to take advantage of the average person's ignorance of how computers and the Internet operate by manipulating ambiguities in language to make it seem like there is somehow a finite amount of Internet out there. When operating under that vague understanding of resource use that is so obvious in the physical world, it seems reasonable that they would want to charge us for how much of something we use. The thing is that this is a deception. There is not a finite amount of internets out there that one day we might us up much like we might one day use up all the oil. There are just limits on how much can be delivered to a certain number of users at any given moment. Which is why the erroneous "tubes" analogy is so attractive.

It is helpful to think of this from the end of the ISP. Faced with the need to consistently upgrade their capacity to handle many more and more customers at the faster and faster speeds that are needed to run the more and more intensive operations we perform over the Internet the ISP decides, not that the costs will one day become prohibitive(because as the Wired graph shows, that simply isn't true. And simple logic tells you that if they faced a problem of overhead they could simply raise their rates. They are the cable company after all), but that since this technical reality creates users of different needs, using a different metric vastly changes your rate structure and you can balloon your revenue.

The simple capitalist, free market logic is obvious here. Where you have a monopoly in your individual markets you can charge whatever you want. Since most regions of the country are serviced by a single cable company or ISP they can all do this without fear of being out competed by the numerous other companies out there. The only customers that will be spared are those that live in competitive markets. And sure enough ATT has started testing this idea out themselves. Now Comcast, the big villains of the last bandwidth war are looking competitive because all they have is a cap.

The slightly less obvious reason that is highly compelling for a cable company to do something sinister like this is that they are a cable company. They are primarily in the business of offering TV entertainment and people going over to the Internet to get their shows whenever they want(even their own customers) deprives them of a customer for their other services, and of ad revenue since people are having difficulty finding satisfying advertising solutions on the Internet. Largely because you have accurate measures of how effective your ads are on the Internet where they are cheap, but have to pay top dollar for television ads that are widely believed to be entirely ineffective.

The tiered structure is basically Time Warner punishing online gamers and online movie watchers for getting their entertainment elsewhere.

The tiers are also very low. Or at least in the way we measure Internet use anymore. Time Warner points out that their first tier, 1G, satisfies the needs of a third of their customers. These are basically the people that don't use the Internet. I admit that these people will probably pay less for the same amount of Internet. Anything above your grandmas Internet use enters an onerous tiered system where you pay for each gigabyte you use. In a month.

Apart from the possibility of viruses and malware using Internet without your consent and beyond your control, this is an attack on the basic philosophy that has led to the Internet and computer use as we know it. We all converted over to cable Internet because it was fast and primarily because we didn't have to pay for every minute of Internet use through a dedicated phone line. It freed up so much of the initial cost barrier of the Internet and increased the speed to the point where it became the multi-media communications tool it had always promised to be. This type of Internet service created the concept of the computer as the always-on, always-connected Internet terminal. This philosophy of the personal computer is central to the way we think of computer use and central to how software operates. Going back to a tiered structure where one pays based on an almost arbitrary metric is an attack, an attack based in greed, but an attack on the philosophy that was foundational to Web 2.0. We will never be able to proceed to Web 3.0 with this albatross around our necks.

That is where monopolies hurt business. Even regional ones. This was a lesson we learned around the last great depression and hopefully with a Democratic congress it is not a lesson we will have to re-learn the hard way. There is at least one Congressman trying to fight back. He has proposed the interesting philosophical change of calling the Internet a utility. I like that. If phone service was essential to daily life enough to be called a utility then the Internet is as well.

You should write to your representatives at the state and federal level. Raising Cain on the Internet will only go so far to produce resistance to this move by Time Warner and Ma Bell. You have to get the honest perspective of the people to the government before the industry twists the story.

It's easy to question the validity of an economic argument that relies on the business generation of the Internet. If you are a moron, or have been living in a cave since 1990. It is easy to point out that many small businesses and individuals have been able to expand their sales and start new businesses because of the low overhead cost of the Internet and its ability to reach an international consumer base. But there are specific businesses that will be impacted by this kind of tiered Internet usage structure. Online gaming is the first that comes to mind. This is now the primary business model for game manufacturers. Every gaming platform is connected to the Internet. The single player content is often secondary in importance to the users of the games. And every gaming device now can download new titles entirely from the Internet. This new business model for the gaming industry that drastically reduces overhead and cuts out the middle man would be jeopardized by requiring gamers to engage in a cost benefit analysis of whether the game would be worth the additional tiered charges.

I currently use Time Warner service to access the Internet. But that will change as soon as I can find an alternate service provider. The only thing a corporation can understand is their own greedy, short term, self interest. So the only way to communicate with them is with money. So I will be taking mine away from the finks at Time Warner for even thinking about using the byte as a metric for billing.

The Friday Bacon

2009-04-10T07:40:00.000-05:00

The Ben Franklin Report: Fraud around Every Corner

2009-04-05T06:19:00.001-05:00

When it comes to expertise in winding down failing financial institutions, there are few more expert than William K. Black, who in a previous position, served as a regulator on the front lines of the S&L Crisis. Sitting down with Bill Moyers, Black makes a very strong case that the entire housing bubble was the result of fraud and inherently fradulent practices, whereby information was not disclosed by the borrower, or in many cases was not even so much as required for the loan. The full half hour interview is probably one of the most consise descriptions of the various problems of the financial industry. Among the most serious allegations in the interview, is that the Prompt Corrective Action Law, a product of the S&L crisis, has been completely ignored. The law sets forth the various categories of capital, ranging from Well Capitalized to Critically Undercapitzlied. If, for instance, a bank were undercapitalized under the provisions of this bit of law, it would be required to submit a Capital Restoration Plan that "is based on realistic assumptions, and is likely to succed in restoring the institution's capital". Even if the plan is accepted by the relevant federal banking agency, the undercapitalized bank is not allowed to acquire any interest in any company or insured depository institution. Thus, if this law were enforced, the banks that have been the recipients of bailouts would not be allowed to gobble up their former competition, at the going market rate or the weekend shotgun wedding rate. If the re-capitalization plan is not acceptable for whatever reason or has been improperly implemented, the executives and directors could potentially be dismissed if they have been employed for longer than 180 days. However, even if they survive management improvements, they will take a hit to the pocket, as the bank is required to seek FDIC approval of any bonus, which have so famously come to be a sticking point in the public debate.

Sean Oleander writes a piece which neatly serves as a continuation of Prof. Frank's points, pointing out the roles current administration officials played in the blissful years during which this crisis-to-be was allowed to metastisize.

One need look no farther than the treatment of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to see that the rule of law was tattered beyond recognition during the Bush Administration. While some may see a certain continuitiy in the financial community to be an asset in such interesting times, but perhaps a better description would be collusion. How much is a bailout worth in campaign donations? Like the War in Iraq, the current financial bailout was planned with very little trancparency by industry insiders, and, again analogous, the cost to the Treasury, even within the first 12 months of operations, have gone far beyond projections.

The problem is all the more immediate with the Social Security Trust Fund failing almost a decade earlier than scheduled. Having served as a piggy bank since the Reagan Administration, the fund is going to start depleting itself, forcing President Obama and Secretary Geithner to borrow more money in the form of treasuries than they might be forced to otherwise. How much more money will be poured into deep, dark holes before the information asymmetry and fraud that is at the heart of the ongoing crisis is resolved? With the establish protecting its mighty Samson from a haircut, the federal government will probably just spend itself out of existence before admitting the problem.

Ben Franklin Report: The Mark to Market Rule

2009-04-03T13:09:00.007-05:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Fine Line

comedycentral.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

NASA Name Contest

As if in direct response to Colbert's challenge to create something, anything to believe in to turn the recession around, the Financial Accounting Standards Board changed the Mark to Market rule. Unfortunately this was actually in response to intense pressure from Congress and the Banks. This lets banks revalue their toxic assets before reporting them on their books. (Which makes me wonder why this was done just after the end of the first quarter.) The banks that took on more risk than they could manage don't just get to value these assets at whatever they want, they get to value these pieces of steaming crap at whatever they think someone would pay if anyone was interested in buying a steaming pile of shit just because someone called it golden.

Of course this looks exactly like what we have been doing so far in relation to this banking fiasco. We looked at the disaster and saw that the people in charge had established a system of perverse incentives that encouraged highly risky acts and called them extremely safe because of a complete lack of regulation. Our response has been to give even more huge shit tons of cash these very same people that fucked us for fun and profit and by removing any other regulation that insists we call a spade a spade. I am finding it harder and harder to resist the urge to call for murderous mobs to converge on Wall Street.

The Wall Street response to the reduction of regulation was obvious. Though, two years ago, if you said that Dow 8,000 would be good news people either would have thought you were crazy or they would have been terrified.

In this article, John Berry tries to criticize the negative reaction to the rule change that I outlined above. But he is comparing apples to oranges when he says,

The family doesn’t have to put up money to cover the difference between the mortgage and the lower market value. Nor should the Atlanta bank have to take a big hit on its reported income because some other mortgage-backed securities owner sold in a depressed market.

He is comparing the effect on banks that have to back their lending by having 10% of that value on their balance sheets. Which of course home owners don't do. And the family that is upside down on their mortgage will have to pay that money on the mortgage that is more than the value of their home just because they bought at the wrong time.

Lots of pundits and apologists for the financial industry keep trying to accuse home owners that face loosing their residence of buying beyond their means. Through this argument they try to push some of the moral culpability for this fiasco on people who only wanted a nice house. They didn't buy above their means, they listened to the market. The market told them what they were worth. It's not their fault the market lied to them because they couldn't have understood the market. Seriously, if huge banks couldn't see this coming when they specialize in finance, then its simply irrational to accuse home buyers of wrongdoing just because the effect of their actions is to further reduce the property value of their neighbors.

Berry does make a legitimate point about the removal of reality in accounting. He asserts that the Atlanta bank he is referring to in the above quote intends to hold on to its mortgage backed securities until they mature. Meaning the bank will be getting all the money from the mortgagees. This is the family in his apples to oranges scenario who has to pay the full value of the mortgage even though the house is worth less. (But hey, at least it still provides the same amount of warmth and shelter. Its just that breakfast nook they added doesn't mean they can afford to send the kids to college.) This means that the banks assets are really worth nearly their full value because the bank will get paid what it originally bargained. So the accounting rule lets them value their assets at what they can reasonably expect to still get paid over 30 years and they can lend out more money to consumers and businesses which increases liquidity and gets the markets moving again and leads to more manufacturing, more jobs, and more spending. Everyone's happy.

Except that just brings us back to where we started last November. No one knows how many mortgages will go into arrears or how many will be devalued through the proposed new bankruptcy rules. The short of it is we don't know if the mortgage backed securities will be worth what they were originally bargained for in 30 years when they run their course. All we do know is that they will be worth less. If not become worthless.

The Friday Bacon

2009-04-03T07:34:00.002-05:00

Opening the fridge...

juice, chocolate, oranges, some leftovers....

On closer inspection...

BACON!!!

Sunday News Roundup: We're Still Here

2009-03-29T17:38:00.003-05:00

Tazers: The CBC's As It Happens, had a segment focusing on the judicial review of the RCMP's use of tazers and in particular their deployment of tazers and the resulting death of Robert Dziekanski.

Environment: Earth Hour was yesterday. Did you turn off and unplug?

Space: Shuttle Discovery landed safely yesterday after upgrading the International Space Station. NASA TV was incredibly boring. The peaceful and safe use of space in the spirit of international cooperation continues. Thank God that our forays into space display the very best our species has to offer.

War: Continued victories in Iraq. Perhaps even progress? Though the entire escapade is a huge distraction from real threats and future battlegrounds. Maybe I spoke prematurely regarding the peaceful use of space.

The Friday Bacon

2009-03-27T02:52:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-03-20T02:50:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon

2009-03-13T13:22:00.001-05:00

Bacony breakfast the day after Thanksgiving last year.

Anticipating The Worst: Update

2009-03-11T09:59:00.005-05:00

Ohio state legislators are beginning the process of seeking permission from the federal government to allow local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws. This is not intrinsically racist, unless you believe that having an immigration policy is racist. However, if you listen to the segment in this link, toward the end there is the comment made that this is being justified in relation to job competition.

I haven't heard of any race riots yet (though there has been an obscene level of unexplained gun violence) but comments like this one cause me to be concerned. When made by politicians, particularly those that have been in office through the beginning of this crisis, or those who may have voted for legislation that could be seen as having contributed to this recession, comments like this seem to be a crass attempt to redirect public outrage away from our elected representatives and the corporate crooks responsible toward a marginalized and politically defenseless group. I think I am looking for a more serious word than "crass" but I don't want to pull a Godwin's Law at this stage. Though when it comes to vilifying an ethnic minority in a time of great economic crisis it is hard to come up with alternative adjectives.

Again, what worries me is the speed with which this is progressing. This was already an issue politicians and talking heads used to distract people when times were good. Now that jobs are scarce, the economic fear mongering that has been invalid for so long is starting to get traction at the fringes of the sane media. Note that the link above is to an NPR station.

Feingold's Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

2009-03-10T11:58:00.001-05:00

The Friday Bacon 3/6/9

2009-03-06T05:09:00.001-06:00

Fazolis club submarino has bacon on it. I used to eat these all the time.

Gun Control in Washington D.C. - No, This isn't a Repeat

2009-03-04T10:28:00.004-06:00

I had previously remarked about the bill moving through Congress that would give full voting rights to Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.). In those comments I also remarked that it was interesting that John McCain was voting against more equal representation of the nations citizens on what appears to be party lines because the seat is expected to be solidly Democratic. People have tried to throw a red herring into this debate by claiming that only states can be represented in Congress. Which is an interesting academic debate from a legal perspective but in reality is a smoke screen for partisan bickering. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually has a principled stance on the nature of the state when it comes to representation in Congress like they do about gun control or abortion. It's a politicians issue and I seriously doubt that framing the issue in this way will get any traction.

To be sure, the Republicans aren't the only ones with partisanship dirt on their hands. The Democrats brought this up because they wanted the extra seat, and threw in the extra seat for Utah as a token gesture. That seat is likely to be just as solidly Republican but Utah was due that seat in 2000 and would be getting it in 2011 anyway after the next census so really, the Democrats aren't giving the Republicans anything of similar value to what they are attempting to give themselves. Still for me this is a freedom and democratic representation issue.

The real fun came in last week when the Republicans dusted off their old roadblock issue, gun control. This article comes from the same ignorant perspective that most MSM coverage of guns has but covers some interesting angles on the nature of gun politics in the Capitol. It pisses me off that in their effort to be as childish and partisan as possible the Republicans are dragging gun control into the mix. Sure it worked, but bringing an unrelated issue into the debate was crass and only indicates that these Republicans don't take a principled stand on anything. It's all politics.

The thing that pisses me off about this is that there is a legitimate reason for the Republicans to bring this up but they don't see it. They don't see it because they don't care about the Second Amendment. All they care about is political power and what they can get away with.

The real issue is the 5-4 decision in Heller. For gun rights Heller is Roe v. Wade. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep a pistol independent of any militia. That is a reasonably narrow interpretation but D.C. interprets the holding even more narrowly to only mean that individuals may keep a loaded single action pistol in their home. Which would mean a definition of "firearm" that is even more restrictive than the now expired Brady Bill and would mean that it is illegal to transport a firearm in any kind of working order. Lots of people on the abortion issue are eyeballing the Supreme Court and not just because of Justice Ginsburg's recent illness. (may she always be healthy and live to be 100) If D.C. can argue for their narrow interpretation successfully or if the balance of The Court shifts, the triumph of gun rights will have been short lived and the jubilation of gun nuts will turn to rage. Federal preemption of further suit by the fascists in D.C. will preserve the rights of law abiding citizens and help close a chapter of wasteful, ineffective, and unconstitutional legislation.

The Friday Bacon

2009-02-27T13:16:00.002-06:00

Ummm... store brand.

The Ben Franklin Report: Tax Revenue

2009-02-24T08:29:00.012-06:00

California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat, introduced a bill in that state's legislature proposing the legalization and taxing of recreational use of marijuana. Ammiano's arguments immediately touched on all the major points that the pro-legalization crowd has been making in between bong hits for decades now. To me the most significant argument is the fiscal one.

Legalization of a nonviolent activity lowers the number of criminals, reduces police costs of pursuing recreational pot smokers, reduces numbers of criminals in prison, reduces prison costs, eliminates need for violence in pot buying transaction and so reduces violent crime, brings marijuana production into the light of day where it can be regulated which produces tax revenue and regulation, regulation of production and use and quality has health benefits, which further reduce costs to society, and creates jobs.

Sure its not a new argument and it is the one that most young potheads are likely to jump on first because it seems like it would be so appealing to the forever cash-strapped government. "Lets just let them tax pot and then they will rush to make it legal, man." The major proponents of such thinking being in a chemically induced type-B personalities, rarely get any traction in mainstream politics. In trying economic times such as these I would expect a well reasoned argument that points out, not only the increased tax revenue ($1 billion in California alone) but also the potential cost savings in other programs, would get a better reception.

However, these arguments have failed before and its not because they are poorly reasoned, despite my poking fun at potheads. There are the usual histrionics that are thrown about by the anti-drug lunatics about the impending collapse of society, and "Oh God, won't somebody please think of the children!?!!?!" Despite the truth that legalized recreational drugs do lead to negative health consequences, and beer and tobacco companies do target children with advertising, those are threats that have proven to be small and that we as a society have obviously chosen to live with. It is also popular to point out that history(the repeal of prohibition, Amsterdam) has shown us that when certain recreational drugs are legalized it eliminates the demand in the informal market for the goods, which directs the attention of professional criminals to other activities. Then the reduction of interaction between normal Joe Sixpack (Johnny Jointsmoker?) people and hardened criminals and the police reduces violent crime. All of this is still to leave out the potential beneficial impact on our foreign relations.

I suspect that the main reason this type of legislation fails time and time again is that it has to be voted on by politicians. Politicians who can count votes. It doesn't matter how many potheads and marijuana activists get together because their voice will still be marginalized in the minds of the elected officials. It's hard to be taken seriously when the thing you are advocating for is illegal and all you want it for is recreation. (Hence the medical marijuana movement) The other reason elected officials will never vote for legalization of recreational marijuana is that they don't want to have their name associated with the downfall of society if all the histrionics of the sour-faced Republican old lady's turns out to be true.

I am Libertarian, and there are two ways to look at the recreational marijuana issue from that perspective as long as you believe that marijuana smoking is no different than tobacco or alcohol use. There is the Ron Paul view that whatever you do with your body is none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me. Then there is the long term Ted Nugent view that says this does affect me because on the aggregate there will be societal health costs from the negative health impacts of drug use.

I suppose I fall into a third category that doesn't care. Sure there are health costs, but like I said above, there are social costs involved, but most social costs of marijuana are created by its illegality, the real social costs stemming from health and high driving when likened to tobacco and alcohol are clearly so minimal that our society has decided (and I agree) that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

So why don't I smoke? There are various reasons but mostly its a political statement. In my experience pot smokers can tend to get over enthusiastic about their recreational drug of choice and become zealous advocates of its use, and distrust those that do not. Sure, this could easily be because it makes one paranoid, but just being in the room makes you just as arrested when the cops show up. My true friends respect me even if they don't respect my decision and offers to partake are made out of common politeness arising from commensality. (After all, what can be a more ritualistic "breaking of bread" than a shared consumption of something that not only involves shared risk but that gives a spiritual sense of significance?) Still, my reflexive aversion to perceived peer pressure, my history of refusal that has lasted so long it has become part of my identity, combined with what I fear is addictive behavior continue to keep me away even though I think legalization of recreational use of marijuana would be a good thing for the country.

I will leave you with this video a friend posted to Facebook.

The Friday Bacon

2009-02-20T13:14:00.002-06:00

My mother in law cooks bacon a whole package at a time on the low setting on an electric range. Very crispy.

2009-02-18T17:05:00.003-06:00

You already have seen them (or you haven't), and you probably don't care why I think they are my top five for the year (nor should you.) Thus, in the interest of being in the fringe, I am going to attempt an explanation as to how this movie is speaking to us about the current political and social landscape, as all good movies should (except super stylish genre flicks, those are timeless.)

Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.

Number 3: Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire very well may win the Oscar for best picture, and with good reason. This movie has no one you've ever heard of, and because George Burns was right: show business is a hideous bitch goddess, you will probably not see these actors in many other Western productions. There has not been a film that has won Best Picture in a long time that had less "star power." (You know, star power in Hollywood and star power in Mario have similar meanings.) The life of this production in the box office and in the awards circuit is not unlike the boy at the center of the plot. So, if you are an old, boring person with nothing better to do that obsesses over the Academy Awards even though you have not seen any of the films that have been nominated because you like awards ceremonies and celebrities more than you like good movies and are looking for a cute, underdog story (sorry for the run-on sentence) here it is.

The plot of the film revolves around a boy who grew up in the slums, loves a girl, and survives despite the world shitting over him (symbolically and literally.) The "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" portion of the film is not what it seems. Him being on the show is not about the money and its power to get him out of the slums. He is on the show for its wide exposure, and the fact he knows his love interest watches it. It is important that the main character doesn't do it for the money, and is not happy about it because of the money. The plot of him on the show reeks of Hollywood coincidence. He only knows the answers because of specific life experiences he has had. However, even though he knows most of the answers, he is still stalling. He wants to be on TV as long as possible. This kid is the epitome of likeable. He is the brown Frodo, except he is doing it all for a girl. Awwwwwwwwwwwww. He is good through and through.

This film is the most depressing while still the most feel good movie you may ever see. And this is important. I was recently reading a story on Reddit (maybe?) that talked about mice who have been conditioned to be defeatist. The mice would learn helplessness in one situation. They then would be put in a similar situation, but one with a way out. The article tried to make the point that humans do the same thing. It claimed that we have been conditioned by our overlords (lizard people or robots, one could only assume) to be defeatist. In dire times (like, oh say, our current depression) we no longer look for nor are able to see the platform that gets us above the rising flood waters of economic collapse. Slumdog Millionaire's main character would disagree.

Almost every question he answers in the game show stems from a life experience he had that sucked. Oh man, did this kid go through some depressing, dark times. However, he is goal orientated. He wants the girl. It doesn't matter what the goal is though. A girl, a trannie, your own ranch, great scientific discoveries. He knows where he wants to be. He doesn't always know how to get there though. But unlike those stupid, white lab mice, this kid is looking up for the platform at all times. Maybe it would never would have appeared. Maybe there is no good in the world. But if you don't look up for the way out of this cruel experiment then you are always going to be stuck in the slums. So, what does it hurt to look up? Worst case scenario, you still end a fucking slumdog.

Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***

Space News Roundup, or Space Cowboy

2009-02-18T10:48:00.003-06:00

Iran launched a satellite into orbit. This got a bunch of people's undies in a twist because it means that they theoretically have the tech necessary to put a missile anywhere in the world. We are thinking this way despite repeated assurances from even neutral observers that Iran is decades away from a nuke, because we are in a society that can't separate space technology from military technology. Which is the answer to the question of why we have better maps of Mars than our own ocean.

Two satellites smacked into each other over Siberia raising global concerns regarding orbital trash and legal concerns regarding the use of space. Who is at fault, the car that is out of control with no driver, or the one that could possibly have driven out of the way?

A backward, green comet, discovered by a Chinese youth, will be visible from earth in the next few days before the Sun flings it out of our solar system forever.

Anticipating the Worst

2009-02-18T10:00:00.003-06:00

John Kerry hosted a discussion last week where he had a round table of experts engage in hysterics regarding the recession and asked them to criticize his party's stimulus, the one he cosponsored. One of their doomsday warnings was that major wars, such as World War II, are preceded by long periods of economic recession. They predicted such an outcome if the current recession lasts, oh say more than two years.

This, in relation to certain things I have been hearing people say, leads me to be concerned. My specific concern is a sensitive one to discuss, however I feel that it is necessary to discuss in the interests of preparedness and prevention. The subject of race riots. If we recall, WWII and most regional conflicts in recent history were preceded by racial unrest or have a racial element to the conflict. Iraq, Darfour, Bosnia, Rwanda.

The things that I have been hearing that worry me are a linking of the effects of the recession on individuals to illegal immigration of Hispanics. I have heard people remark, "why should I be worried about the civil rights of illegal immigrants I can't even find a job myself." To be sure, I have only heard this sentiment coming from racist people who already bemoan bilingual signage. Still, the linking of the bad effects of the recession on individuals, by the individuals themselves, through the issue of illegal immigration, to a specific racial category of people, is what worries me. The immigration debate already inflames gun toting extremists to the point of mobilization. And the Minutemen were in existence when we were still relatively prosperous. I fear the recruitment power the recession will have for violent racist radicals.

This will be the kind of thing that plays out like prior race riots. On the streets in the poor parts of the country people will feel the pressure building every day. That sense of racial tension will never see the light of day in the MSM until the flood waters suddenly burst forth in a regional paroxysm of violence. Local riots will break out and only local outlets will cover them until they become either large, or last multiple days, or become shocking in some other way. Then the national MSM will start saying what had been obvious to 1/4 of the country for months. This will all be a complete shock to white middle class midwesterners who will wake up one morning as the MSM brings their attention to race riots already in progress.

Honestly, I hope it doesn't happen that way. Maybe it will just be local like the riots over the killing of Oscar Grant III. Or maybe the racial tension will never reach critical mass, or maybe the catalyst will never appear. I am just worried at the pace with which racist sentiment against Latinos has changed under the influence of the recession. For practical purposes, we should be concerned with good relations with Mexico because a good portion of their GDP is remittances from the US, and they recently discovered epic shit tons of oil. We should stay friendly with our neighbors.

The Friday Bacon

2009-02-13T11:59:00.000-06:00

Bacon lettuce and turkey.

The Icy Cold Hand of Evolution is Reaching For You

2009-02-12T13:55:00.004-06:00

It's Darwin's 200th birthday and that is as good an excuse as any to engage in soap-boxery. Atheists are using this day to publicly make a spectacle. Though when it comes to making an ass of yourself in front of the media the Freedom From Religion Foundation just doesn't have the flair of PETA. If only there was some way to combine public nudity with atheism. We need to see some hot atheist ass. I am publicly calling for an "Emperor has no clothes" parade in Madison, WI. It will start at the capitol and end in my "evolution research lab."

I discussed previously that the public debate over Evolution does not actually regard any scientific discussion. The Christian zealots are using this as a way of publicly challenging the faith of other Christians out there basically saying you will go to hell if you believe in science. Using the fear they have used since the beginning for recruiting. Even the British cling to religious posturing in their ignorance rather than trust the people who dedicate their lives to careful study of the natural world. Which is exactly what this is about. Making highly educated people who have dedicated their lives to rigorous study into purveyors of a competing ideology. Reducing science to mere faith and turning scientists into servants of the devil. Christians know well how to turn mundane decisions into matters of eternal moral significance and normal people into sinners and the enemy. Creationism is an ideology of ignorance and hate.

Moving Closer to Democracy

2009-02-11T11:02:00.002-06:00

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee voted to give full voting rights to the Washington D.C. House seat today. For some time now their license plates have read "No taxation without representation." Referring to their lack of representation in Congress. It's interesting to see McCain voting against this Democratic seat as if party politics were the primary consideration.

Confidence: not yours

2009-02-11T10:22:00.003-06:00

I was going to remark on the relation between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's speech yesterday, the way the markets reacted, and right wing pundits and opinion columnists, but I am having a bloggers' existential funk. I'll get back to that.

What I was going to say was a response to Geithner's comment,

"Our challenge is much greater today because the American people have lost faith in the leaders of our financial institutions, and are skeptical that their government has – to this point -- used taxpayers' money in ways that will benefit them. This has to change."

I wondered how much the lack of confidence the people have in governments ability to spend us out of the economy is due to past failures, or if it was due to the constant barrage of ideological criticism the bailouts have faced. I initially thought that this was a slightly more tenable position than friends I have who simply remark, "I hate the Republicans," when discussing the situation. While possibly more nuanced, I have come to realize that that thought is still colored by my dislike for the general Republican platform and my disgust with Congress.

Then I considered why my own criticism didn't cause me to feel any cognitive dissonance with regard to the thought that Republican ideologues are just peddling uncertainty. Other than a certain us vs. them outgroup antagonism, I find myself hard pressed to reconcile the apparent hypocrisy. To be sure, there is a significant difference in the details of the two (three?) bailouts, but what I am trying to do is separate out my moral, emotional, and ideological proclivities from the factual differences in hopes that I can logically assess the situation.

Clearly that is difficult for someone like me coming from a background of squatters rights and phreaking.

I Like Tedtalks. They All Talk So Pretty and Dang 'Telligent.

2009-02-10T14:59:00.005-06:00

This video is about freedom of information. Pretty much what you would expect from a Tedtalk on the subject. He is a librarian who believes in free information, how novel. (see: "A Tale of Two Film Buffs" in this here blog.) At the end he talked about a project he is involved in that takes a "snapshot" of the log cabin every so often. That shot is then saved and stored in three locations: LA, Amsterdam and Egypt.

There, people can do research about what the log cabin was like. Log Cabin history. To most, the Log Cabin is the future wave, or the ultimate present. However, when you think about what you could learn about people by studying what was in the Log Cabin. It is like any other primary source in its expansiveness. Sociology should particularly benefit.

The study of history itself will probably change drastically. You can actually view how perception of current events, then recent events and then history changes over time more realistically than ever. The population test size, or number of replicates, is increased dramatically when compared to a few diaries and newspaper articles. Shit, someone will probably quantify something and then there can be more graphs in history.

So, not only does the Log Cabin (which we are all stuck in) mean we have to all get over our hang ups. You know, because we all now know everything about each other. It also means we have to get over how we all used to be.

My Top Five Films of the Year: I know, I know, but please keep reading (part 2).

2009-02-07T21:24:00.004-06:00

You already have seen them (or you haven't), and you probably don't care why I think they are my top five for the year (nor should you.) Thus, in the interest of being in the fringe, I am going to attempt an explanation as to how this movie is speaking to us about the current political and social landscape, as all good movies should (except super stylish genre flicks, those are timeless.)

Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.

Number 4: Tropic Thunder

Tropic Thunder is a satire of the upper echelon of Hollywood. Thanks to a near century of films about the upper echelons of Hollywood, we know it is a broader metaphor for the upper echelons of society.

This is furthered by the plot's premise of a film production about a war becomes a war. The Hollywood leading men becomes a war hero and leader of men into the shit. The Hollywood producer becomes Russel Crowe from "Body of Lies." The film's director gets blown up by his own brilliance.

Tom Cruise's Hollywood producer turned NSA head is the center of the film. His skill is only done in by his apathy for others. You can only imagine the world in which his ilk, the Dick Cheney clones, were building bridges, developing communication technologies or growing healthy cheap food.

Nick Nolte playing a false idol speaks to the absurdity of patriotic myth. There are always new heroes among us who can choose their own righteous path. Yet, how many try to live up to false ancestors? It does no one any good to study and emulate the life of someone when it is worse than fictional, it is intentionally deceptive. History is written by the winners, but that doesn't mean they tell us how they won.

Then there is Robert Downey's genius take on race. Again the idea that what you see and hear is contrived. Movies, much like croney journalism, present public figures in untrue light. Is Barak Obama really black? Is Bill Richardson really hispanic? Is Hillary Clinton really a woman? Is Dick Cheney really robot Satan? Is John McCain really a rich, old white guy? Yes, unfortunately. It is important to note than in happyland, the characters cannot save themselves until they become who they "really" are. However, Robert Downey's false face was so harmless, and somewhat helpful. He was maybe more a hero because of it. Is it really so bad to be someone else, so long as you act morally? Can you really lie about your current identity? It seems as if you are just misleading them about your past and present identities.

The film is constantly extending the themes of fiction and truth around sharp jokes about Americans being at war oversea, western views of foreign terrorism, Hollywood journalism, and the celebrity myth. It was a great sandwich; fresh, dense, layered and delicious.

Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***

The Friday Bacon

2009-02-06T04:25:00.000-06:00

The return of the bacon grease.

The Walk of Shame: Taxes

2009-02-04T10:26:00.004-06:00

As commercials announce to Joe Punchclock that the Taxman commeth we are greeted with a plethora of news items detailing the failure of President Obama's cabinet nominees to pay their fair share. Many of the editorials are already decrying the "new politics of responsibility" being just like the old politics of . . . well what do you call it when the President says it's OK to torture people? Evil? Its understandable why commentators on the political right have attempted to focus on the immediate failures of the Obama administration in what appears to be a rapid return to politics as usual. I would be inclined to resist except Obama's picks for high level political positions seems less like looking to experience and more like rearranging the deck chairs on the S.S. Democratic party. Which, if I recall correctly, is exactly how the first G.W. Bush administration began.

Obama and the Military Industrial Complex

2009-02-04T00:58:00.004-06:00

In the first few weeks of the Obama Administration, it is becoming increasingly clear that he can't please everyone. Unfortunately, some in the military establishment have gone almost to the point of blackmail in attempting to place controls on U.S. Defense Policy.

With the word "stimulus" in the air, and every corporation with operations in the United States smelling bacon, an effort has emerged in Washington seeking to extend production of the F-22 as a sort of stimulus spending. A webpage sponsored by manufacturer Lockheed-Martin alleges that 95,000 jobs can be saved by continuing to manufacture the F-22 Raptor, without mentioning a specific cost in additional military spending. Undoubtedly, the Air Force itself is hoping for this increase as well, considering reports that the F-35 can't stand up against Russian air defense systems. However, this is the least of Obama's military problems.

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledging the change of focus for the Defense Department from Iraq to Afghanistan, has a laundry list of potential military problems which are very far-reaching.

For instance, [Adm. Mullen] said, the United States needs to help Iran develop stability instead of fomenting terror.

Other sticking points abroad, Mullen said, are assuring stability in places like Russia and China, dealing with issues like famine and genocide in Africa, and the drug trade in Mexico.

This news report on Adm. Mullen's full lecture is well-worth reading. Obviously, the Department of Defense is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of government funding, especially considering the costs of expanding operations in Afghanistan, despite efforts to curb U.S. strategic objectives.

Two other reports regarding the military-industrial complex could serve as an early test of the new administration. The first, that the military is attempting to accuse Obama of reducing military spending, by not giving them all that the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted, smacks of career military officials attempting to establish their role in crafting defense policy. While bureaucratic squabbling is hardly anything new, this second report, is far more disturbing. If senior military officials are truly attempting to pressure Pres. Obama into accepting a misleading plan to rename apples oranges, they are certainly making a political decision instead of respecting the orders of their new Commander-in-Chief.

Defense policy, especially spending decisions, are fundamentally political decisions, and thus the exclusive province of elected civilian leaders. Even if General Petraeus is worried that he is losing his hotline to the White House that he enjoyed in the days of the Bush Administration, it would probably be more useful for him to pursue a good working relationship with the incoming administration, rather than engaging in bureaucratic in-fighting over issues which have already been addressed.

My Top Five Films of the Year: I know, I know, but please keep reading.

2009-02-04T00:20:00.004-06:00

You already have seen them (or you haven't), and you probably don't care why I think they are my top five for the year (nor should you.) Thus, in the interest of being in the fringe, I am going to attempt an explanation as to how this movie is speaking to us about the current political and social landscape, as all good movies should (except super stylish genre flicks, those are timeless.)
Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.

Number Five: In Bruges

Bruges is a sort of fantasy land. It reminds us of the past. It is a medieval themed tourist trap. Its streets are laden with history yet is occupied with visitors. Bruges is a distraction for the protagonists, and the people trying to bring the protagonists to justice. To me, it is the Middle East. Or Death. Well, really, what's the difference, now a days?

Colin Farrell and some old guy are hit men who get sent there after they did what they do best in London. They were violent in London. Too violent. They must be sent abroad. Together, they are the soldiers we send overseas.

Colin Farrell has committed an atrocity at home, though he had good intentions. Well, they weren't "good" but he didn't mean to kill the kid. He has immense guilt over it. He hates being in Bruges, and wants to leave as soon as possible. And when a future race war is brought up, he says he will fight with the blacks. He is the western liberal.

Some old guy did not commit "the" atrocity, but has done his fair share of damage. He isn't filled with guilt. He is more or less a company man. He generally does what he is told. He is not rebellious. He is trying to make the best of his stay there. He is the one with the most direct contact with the boss. He is the western conservative.

Ralph Fiennes is their boss in London. The prototypical crime boss who dresses nice, gets things done, and has (compared to the protagonists) near ultimate power. He is even more violent, but because he is the boss, he gets to stay in London, and only goes to Bruges at his convenience, apparently to relax. And, of course, let's not forget his warped and conflicted sense of morality. This murder is ok, but this one is not. He is the politician who is above politics and in it for himself (or his bosses.)

While in Bruges, events become a tad surreal. The normal rules don't apply. The characters, especially Colin Farrell, are not taking their trip well. This is culture shock. Or Death.

The characters do not know how to handle their new environment, and their short trip is indefinite. The plot eventually comes to the the boss ordering some old guy to kill Colin Farrell. He wants one side to take out the other, as if this will achieve anything. The movie throws us into a cycle of violence in a strange land. What should be an almost spiritual, and wholly good, place, becomes a horrible place. Death and destruction, even though most of the characters have relatively good intentions.

Also, Peter Dinklage plays a racist midget actor in an art film. I just wanted to add that in, because it is great.

Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***

The New Politics: RIP 2/1/09 That Didn't Take Long

2009-02-01T14:56:00.004-06:00

Apparently Republicans are running around raising ideological opposition to Obama's huge economic stimulus package. Heh heh. The Republicans got a good look at Obama's Package this week and the President spent time coming in and out of their offices trying to get them to take it. It seems like the do nothing Congress has decided to keep with what they know rather than try to spend massively huge shit tons of money in hopes Keynesian economics does work.

The kicker is that the debate isn't over whether the money should be spent. Its about whether we are giving enough tax breaks to the wealthy fuckers that aren't feeling the pinch. This is a debate over ideology rather than substance. Let me point out that tax cuts and government spending are actually the same thing. Cuts in income and spending both reduce the amount of money in the treasury. The two terms are just ideological code for where the politician thinks the money should go. If you believe in entitlement of the upper class you say "tax cuts." If you believe in entitlement of the poor you say "appropriation." It's bullshit and I am surprised that the fact this is all about ideology doesn't rise to the level of public discourse. Sure you might say that there is an economic debate behind the two sides, except real economists will admit that even amongst them it is really an ideological debate because there is no lab in which to experiment and prove who is more wrong.

The Friday Bacon

2009-01-30T11:15:00.000-06:00

The image is of bacon grease filtering into the grease cup. I feel remiss for not posting this before the New York Times and Yahoo. But at least I got there before Ric Romero. If there isn't already a patron saint of bacon, Jason Day deserves that honor.

Coming Home

2009-01-29T22:14:00.004-06:00

The DOD recently decided to continue not awarding the Purple Heart to solders with post traumatic stress disorder. The blogosphere has been set aflame with the debate over the issue with one side arguing that this would make a substantial step toward acknowledgment, reducing stigma, and treatment of the disease within the military, and the other side trying hard to find new ways to say that PTSD doesn't exist while not overtly saying that.

This was followed the next day with the revelation that military suicides have reached a new record and have surpassed the rate of suicide in the general population. The close timing gave me pause to think about the significance of the two stories in relation to each other. I am not saying that awarding a medal for having PTSD would reduce suicide among military veterans. I just think that there needs to be a better way of serving those who have done their service to protect us. Having veterans among my family, friends, and co-workers, I have found that many of the combat vets are too proud too seek help even when they need it. You would think that psychologists could find a way to communicate directly with a soldier's experience and explain that getting treatment doesn't detract from their valor or self reliance. But I am not a soldier and I don't have any answers. I just don't like the toll that the psychological wounds of war are taking.

Evamaloutions

2009-01-28T15:37:00.003-06:00

I think the real issue is not clearly explained in debates over creationism. In discussion over changes to curriculum it becomes apparent that what is being debated is the position of science in our society and the deference due to science in examination of nature. I don't think that the scriptural interpretive preference of an obnoxiously vocal minority should have any bearing on how we regard the statements of experts on matters of fact. The point is not that fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack our culture through the indoctrinating power of the already failing public school system, but that they intentionally avoid narrowing the issue or focusing on details because this is a discussion they loose as soon as rationality prevails.

In case you were wondering this post was not provoked by anything in particular but is tangentially related to the posts this week regarding stumbling upon websites anthropomorphizing of animals and showing that the efforts by religious fanatics to destroy science is not restricted to right wing Christian maniacs.

Posted from a Palm Treo mobile device.

Palin Strikes Back

2009-01-28T00:10:00.005-06:00

For those worried that the Daily Show might run out of material during the next four years of an Obama administration, the Internet's savior, Sarah Palin, has come through again, launching her own new SarahPAC. Political Action Committees are compelled under federal law to comply with certain regulations, but they spend a lot of money in a city where Benjamin Franklin speaks. What exactly constitutes "a better, safer, and stronger America in the 21st Century" should provide many punchlines in the near-term. Hopefully Governor Palin's four year vacation from federal electoral politics will help her develop coherent policy positions, but I don't imagine her supporters want to hear anything more than catch phrases.

In a slightly more disturbing twist, there is a group known as PalinPAC which stole the catchy name, and as of this writing has received 2588 hits on their website. The most telling mark of something resembling the political version of a scam is that their mission page mentions the values and issues of the Republican Party, but doesn't, at any point gto into any meaningful depth on what exactly those values and issues are. The one page that might reveal the thinking behind the leaders of the group, about their Religious Values has a bible quote, and a very interesting quote which is reproduced below.

Every problem we have can't be George Bush's fault like many believe. Why don't we look to and ask the Congress and House of Representatives what they have been doing about our country's problems? The Democrats wanted control and got it. But what have they done with it?

Obviously nothing a group that supports Sarah Palin would agree with.

Enforcement of the Convention Against Torture

2009-01-27T11:30:00.006-06:00

Perhaps the winds of change are blowing through the District of Columbia, for a change. Professor Manfred Nowak has spoken publicly about his belief that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld should be brought before a court because of the conditions of imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. A video of an interview with CNN's Rick Sanchez is posted for context below.

For those readers unfamiliar with the various levels of complicity, such as John Ashcroft's infamous quote, Condoleeza Rice's admission, or Dick Cheney's admission from Taxi to the Dark Side, a few highlights are presented below by liberal pundit Rachel Maddow, for a quick brief.

To summarize the argument even further into condensed legal flavor, Article 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment compels member states to prosecute allegations of torture, casting a wide net to catch everyone between the interrogator to those who knew about it and did nothing, in theory. The Text is quoted below.

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

This, to state the obvious, is the largest test of the new administration. How will Obama handle these allegations? I hope this is a question that is being asked again in the White House and in various agencies of the Federal Government, to the logical conclusion that these allegations must be investigated as a matter of legitimacy. How the Rule of Law is enforced will set the tone, as it a lack of credible enforcement of the law as it is written set the tone of the Bush Administration. Simply issuing a subpoena to former officials will not work, just ask Karl Rove. There can be no pleading and begging for a notionally independent branch of government for morsels of information and the respect due such an august body. Flaunting of Congressional subpeonas must stop, and the words of the anointed, yet not confirmed, Attorney General, Eric Holder, are encouraging, if unsettling to certain people, such as Alberto Gonzalez. Unfortunately for the shamed former AG seems to rest precariously on the words of John Yoo, former counselor in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

The Difference Between Infantaside and Abortion

2009-01-26T01:03:00.002-06:00

You are probably seeing this article in your Google search because you misspelled "infanticide."

This posting is only slightly related to the title. On Friday Obama signed an executive order reinstating funding for groups that perform or provide information regarding abortion overseas. Reversing the "Mexico City Policy" of George Bush and the right wing religious extremists that supported him. Editorials across the nation declare that this has inflamed the national furor over abortion again, but this was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and those people had their undies in a twist for this day in advance.

It is really upsetting to me that the national abortion debate never rises above our worst and most base instincts. People on both sides straw man each others position's and are disrespectful of their opponents ideology to the point of deliberately lying to their own supporters. What is most interesting to me is that the Supreme Court has heard some well thought out policy arguments in its handling of the issue and it is unfortunate that some of these thoughts don't trickle down into the national debate. For instance the supreme court ruled a law criminalizing use of contraception out of respect for the dignity of family and marriage and the privacy of marital intimacy. Kind of throws a clog in the pro-family rhetoric the right wing slings about.

When it comes to women in the workplace and abortion I feel stupid for never putting two and two together until I read the opinion of The Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey.

The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.

505 U.S. 833, 833 (1992) Hurrr I'm a durrr. Given the nature of the glass ceiling and the thinly veiled questions women get in job interviews regarding whether they are "planning to have a family", and the correlation between attitudes regarding abortion and attitudes regarding women in the workplace, I can't believe it took the Supreme Court to point out this conclusion to me.

Speaking of Religious Zealotry

2009-01-25T23:59:00.001-06:00

Isn't there something in the Bible about graven images? One of those "commandment" thingys the fundamentalist religious fanatics keep trying to force onto public land?