VOTE!

Republicrats: Shifts Toward Blue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ben Franklin Report: Tax Revenue

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 Way They Think Inside The Beltway

Its an interisting commentary on the democrats and how far they have fallen from being a legitimate alternative to the Republicans, that the repeal of the presidential offshore oil drilling ban is seen as a challenge to the Democrats. The President said, “This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.” For many people the immidiate response to that statement is, "good." To the Republicrats in congress who look up to vermin like Joseph Liberman, this statement from the President is a challenge. If they react like they have for the last seven years they will be falling all over themselves to capitulate to the weakest of political pressures. It seems like congress still hasnt gotten the message the voters sent them in 2006, that we are sick of this shit and want some fucking balance and representation in our useless federal government.

Maybe Carlin Was Right

So now there is no one left to vote for. At the beginning of this long election season I could see no difference between Obama McCain and Clinton. They are all the same centrist robot pushed forth by the two big parties. It feels like 1999 again when there was no apparent difference between Bush and Gore. Over time though, like with all politicians, the candidates have revealed which freedoms they hate and what they want to spend our money on.

Yesterday the Green Party announced their presidential candidate will be Cynthia McKinney. Yes, that Cynthia McKinney. Its confusing to me that the Green party would field a candidate that is obviously not capable of being president. This woman has no self control and is fixated on trivial issues. At best, she would be an embarrassment to the country if she were on a world stage, at worst she would spark an international incident with her lack of tact and decorum.

The only reason I mention the Greens here is because I am now at a loss for whom I shall cast my vote. Obama voted for the FISA bill. That's just about the only concrete thing I know about the guy. That and he was a crusader to ban guns until he decided to run for president. McCain is little better. From being the maverick Senator that stood up for what he believed in even if it was against his own party, he has cozyed up to right wing religious fanatics, stood up for the party that betrayed him in 2000, and gone against his own campaign finance laws and ideals. He was an idealistic war hero that stood above the corruption of politics and filth of Washington before he lost the primary to Bush. Now he is just another pandering politician trying to tell you what you want to hear. This election makes me feel like its last call and I am being hit on by a drunk sociopath.

The Libertarians have put forth Bob Barr of all people. Holy fucking mother of everliving fat! Bob fucking Barr! This man was regarded as the most right-wing conservative politician in congress. He was anti-drug, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, he tried to outlaw all non-Abrahamic religions in the military, and he voted for the PATRIOT act. Now he has criticized his vote for the patriot act, advocated the repeal of the income tax, and paid lip service to legalization of pot, which is apparently sufficient for the party heads of the Libertarian party. This is why I call myself philosophically libertarian rather than identify with the Libertarian party. They are more concerned with taxes and free trade than with actual liberty. So now there is no one left to vote for but freedom hating hypocrites.

Its like a bad movie and they are running out of extras. Seriously, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney? This is the best we can do? There are hundreds of people in politics at the national level. Senators, Representatives, Judges, Party heads. Most of us know businessmen and fucking actors that would be better choices. I feel like I am in a poorly written political farce that has run low on budget and can't afford more actors with lines.

Obama (D-IL), Yea

That is the sound of Obama voting to set your freedom, privacy, and security back to the days before Nixon. Again a major piece of legislation is pushed through with no real discussion and no in depth understanding of what the law does. Instead the Bush administration and the power hungry, do-nothing senators push their message of fear that has inexplicably continued to work for them for seven years. It helps that there isn't any press coverage.

Remember these are the same people who had sufficient intelligence to prevent 9/11 but failed to. Yet they continue to say they need to listen in on to all of our calls. They continue to say that we need to give protection to the phone companies that may have broken the law in their rush to give all of our information, calls, Internet traffic, and emails to the government. They also continue to say that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about. Ahh the old standby of the people who want a police state and the conformists who support them. In case you weren't paying attention in elementary school that is the kind of shit we don't stand for in America. The fourth amendment was the founding fathers declaration that Americans should not have to be subject to such a weak red herring. I have also explained in previous posts why law abiding persons have every reason to have lawful secrets and to fear a government with too much power or information. For example, what if the Democrats decide to create a political smear machine and hunt out every gay conservative through the massive amount of information this will create? Then the law abiding, republicans will see what they have to fear from the fruits of their own fear mongering and lust for power.

What I really came here to do is rail against Obama for voting for fear and against freedom. I was really excited by Obama after his first speech regarding the racist conspiracies circulating in his church. That speech showed real leadership and had the potential of elevating the national dialogue regarding race. I was particularly excited because after months of hearing nothing but the words "hope" and "change" I finally knew something of substance about Obama. I was beginning to understand the rock star level of excitement that surrounded him. The last week has completely eliminated any enthusiasm I once had. Despite the "embarrassing pejorative" Jessie Jackson leveled at Obama, it is true that he has been giving up his convictions to appear more mainstream. Obama has been a crusader against gun rights, and even though I disagree with him, I was disappointed to hear his quiet measured reaction to the decision by the supreme court that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a handgun. Then later it was announced that Obama was in favor of the death penalty. I don't particularly have an opinion on the issue but I do know that if you want to get elected in this country, especially at the national level, you better be in favor of the death penalty. Combined with his taking the side of the freedom haters in congress this all spells out that Obama is another political robot just to act as a face. He is the dickless face of a party with no balls. Hows that for a pejorative?

Probable Cause II

(click here to view)

First, in answer to the "Case for Telecom Immunity," specifically: "2. Beyond the theoretical case for the warrantless program’s legality, the telecoms here specifically relied on written representations from the administration that the program had been reviewed by the president and determined to be legal." The question of the legality of this program is anything but theoretical, and the argument so often so cleverly invoked to defend this insidious assault on the very freedoms that Bush notionally seeks to defend.

Addressing the National Association of Attorney Generals, the debate surrounding the FISA renewal and telecom immunity was Bush's primary topic. In a case of misrepresentation, W says the target of the whole program of the big bad jihadis sitting in the mountains of Afghanistan, dialing their favorite operatives in Anywhere, Homeland. I would imagine being so far away from home, in a land where no one can speak their language, they would be pretty homesick.

However, evidence has emerged that the real target of this program may really be the e-mails. Which, makes me want to breath a sigh of relief, given the Bush Administration's track record of handling e-mail. It's not that the NSA, by means of this warrantless wiretapping program, invaded your privacy and cracked open a Pandora's box where probable cause and the very slim margin of institutional procedure that keep Americans from having to fear what goes bump in the night, but they probably wouldn't know how to manage it.

And if you were wondering how probable cause died, and if it will make a sound? I would say probably not. Our newest candidate for the vaunted 'Republicrat' status, Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes said that he hopes to bring the matter to a vote within a week. Also of interest, is the point that the House has seen and reviewed documents in relation to this matter, and they're "pretty much finished." So, what was in those documents? Or, were they mostly redacted? Some of the potential deals that are in discussion would continue to leave this entire matter beneath the lock and key of classification, away from the prying eyes of the interested or not public. The Senate version of the bill that has already been passed allows the Attorney General to wave his magic pen and pronounce everything legal and dismiss any and all related lawsuits.

For extra flavoring, try the aforementioned NPR coverage, now with audible delight. Or Senator Feingold issuing a public service warning about the already-passed Senate version.




Some editorialization from the Young Turks. Yes, the Democrats do suck.



And if you haven't seen Bush enough today, here he is addressing the National Association of Attorney Generals. And no matter how many times Bush said that his government told these telecommunications companies that the program that they were requested to participate in was legal, it clearly wasn't and every instance of him saying that the government said this program was legal before it saw the light of day could be used as evidence against him.

Republicrats: Another Nail in the Coffin

As some of you might have heard, the amendments to the FISA regulations, which also includes telecom immunity, has passed through the Senate. As the article mentions, there were 19 Democratic Senators who voted in favor of the legislation, along the lines of security before freedom or something like that.

Here is a list of the Senators who have voted to uphold the Bush administration's priorities, to twist the truth, to become Republicrats.

• Baucus (MT)
• Bayh (IN)
• Carper (DE)
• Casey (PA)
• Conrad (ND)
• Inouye (HI)
• Johnson (SD)
• Kohl (WI)
  
• Landrieu (LA)
• Lincoln (AR)
• McCaskill (MO)
• Mikulski (MD)
• Nelson (FL)
• Nelson (NE)
• Rockefeller (WV)
• Salazar (CO)
• Webb (VA)
• Whitehouse (RI)
  

Socialist Feminism

The entire old media, not just Fox News, has been dragging what is percieved as the middle further and further to the Right. This is just to reaquaint you with what The Left actually looks like.

You should be compensated for your domestic labors and for your offspring. These activities directly benefit your employer and the state. The substantial benefit derived from these activities amounts to these entities differing costs to you. In a very real sense you are subsidising the operation of your employer and the government with the costs of remaining alive.

When you go grocery shopping, commute to and from work, keep a clean house, and produce offspring you confer a benefit on those entities. This streaches credulity in its current form so allow me to expand on these points. Clearly your employer should not be relieved every day that you made it in alive, they should not be expected to compensate you for the act of sticking your dirty shirts in the washing machine, or even to pay extra for the detergent. Even if I were saying this it would in effect limit your freedom in life as your employer would choose the least expensive mode of satisfying your basic survival needs even to the extent of a return to the company town of the 1920's where every aspect of your life was decided by your employer. As for transportation, if every employer participated in public transportation and allowed employees to buy group rate passes, freedom of choice need not be impinged. Also, if your employer was responsible of every aspect of your cost of living it would severely reduce wages. However, your wage would be an actual reflection of the market value of your labor instead of ransom to subsidise the cost of having employees.

I am making this radical point to emphasize that every employer has a moral duty to pay every employee a living wage. Further, I wish to emphasize that demands for universal health care, and universal post-highschool education are demands of the rational center, not the fringe element of the left. Freedom from fear about housing, food, hygene, health, and education needs are basic conserns of real people in America.

On the government front the profiting off of your living is more incidious. This is exemplified by the state's intrest in promoting marrage. I am not referring to any debate on homosexual marrage. The state actively promotes marrages for the purpose of creating a stable tax base. They do this in part by regulating marrage through licencing, but to a much greater degree in the creation and application of law. Ones marital status is a legal status and can have a substantive effect on the outcome of a court case, specifically because the state wishes to promote marrage as opposed to other consentual sexual relationships between adults. For example, children born out of wedlock are more likely to end up in the care of the state. While this is not going to be the most luxurious accomidation for the child, it can be illustrative about the costs the state is differing to married parents so that they bear the cost of raising a child until the child becomes a taxpayer.

At the very least, the state owes every child health care and education past the high-school level. Both of these things have a higher return on the investment paid into them. The return is a healthy adult with higher earning potential, and thus more taxable wages. This article makes a similar argument.

After hearing all this, would you believe I am a libertarian?

There you have it. This is the left. NPR and PBS and Democrats like John Edwards are the center. The Clintons, Joseph Liberman, the main stream media, and most of the Republicans are the right. The evangaliticals, Fox, the Neocons, and the rest of the Republicans are the far right. I could tell you about the far left but they are really crazy. PETA crazy.

Walk of Shame

As much of a dickhead as Bill Maher is occasionally, he sums up this year's biggest douchbags that should be filled with shame and remorse but are even more worthy of hate because they aren't asshamed.



X

The Budget Process

In one of the surest signs yet that the "opposition" party is firmly in the pocket of W and his administration, Congressional Republicans are more upset about the federal spending bill under consideration than the Democrats are. The interested onlooker might note that the bill includes most of what Bush asked for, and also some extra money to spend on developing coal power sources. Because that's real progressive legislative policy in keeping with the preferences and long-term interests of the American voter. As of press time, I hadn't heard back from the article's author on whether or not the Congress was really planning on spending $195 billion to fix that bridge up in Minnesota, see the video goodness below.

A Certain Republicrat from Nevada

Just in case, for those of you who may be wondering about this, here is the definition of opposition. Please note, there is no mention of toadying up to another branch of government that you notionally oppose.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/15/politics/main3622108.shtml

Is W's argument that he needs to be able to listen in on anyone and everyone's phone conversations and internet traffic without a warrant really "very strong" as CBS News characterizes it? Is there anyone who actually believes it is? Does anyone believe that CBS News is any more relevant than CNN or Fox, as in not at all?

I would like to thank everyone who flooded Sen. Reid's office in opposition to him sending out the Intelligence Committee version of the extension, or perhaps permanent inclusion into public law. For all of those who were wondering what a Republicrat is, it is embodied in an opposition leader who plays both parts of congress against each other and then gives the President he notionally opposes everything that he could possibly ask for. Let's hope there can be some semblance of a sustained outcry. It may make me sound like a crazy person, but we cannot allow telecom companies to get away with cooperating with what they knew to be an illegal, unauthorized program to surveil upon the American people. And, for the love of reason, why should we allow our personal freedoms, or at the very least, the reasonable expectation that your phone call isn't being listened in on, to vanish like so much water vapor?

Sens. Feingold and Dodd are heroes, by the by.

Blame FOX for the weakness of the Democratic party!

The Democrats are perpetually weak and cowardly, continuing to falter to the same political rhetoric that has been defeating them since 9/11 and lets face it since Clinton left office. Probably since before but I am too young to remember a time before Clinton. So whats the solution? Blame Fox News! They are to blame for the same cowardly behavior in the media after all.

How do we stop Fox News? Fox needs to be counered by an equeally radical channel on the left. Air america failed not because Liberals can't shock people with the same circus but because the average person can't relate to liberalism. That's why the charge of being liberal elietists sticks. There is no clear common sense connection between liberal philosophies like single payer healthcare and the daily lives of normal people. Colbert hit the nail on the head with"truthyness." People believe in O'Riley even when he's lieing because they feel his truthyness and that underlying "moral" message speaks to them.Also, Liberalism does not benefit from years of intentionaly tieing the politics of the party to unrelated issues of morality like the Goldwater Conservatives. I don't just mean their lip service to the religious right, but the strong pathos associated with a work ethic in America. People hate anything broadly defined as wellfare because the American values independence and self reliance and feels shame at taking a handout because we are taught by our society to work for our bread. Until liberals can play the same dirty game the conservatives have been and play it correctly and earnestly by actually believing their own bullshit and tie issues of social justice directly to the common perception of what is right we will never hold on to the gains we have made in the last election.

Lieberman/Lamont Results and the Aftermath

First of all, I may be a amateur political pundit (which means that I don't get paid to do it, not that I don't have as much education as some of those who are put in front of a camera), but there are several comments floating around the internet about the results of the recent Connecticut primary results.

Firstly, I would like to address the comments made by Dick Cheney and Tony Snow. In pressing the opinion that electing someone that might have a policy disagreement with the establishment would invariably weaken our national security is inherently flawed, and it hardly needs to be addressed here. However, there is one thing that I would like to mention: last time I checked Dick Cheney and Tony Snow were Republicans. Maybe I've missed something being in China for the past few months, but I seem to recall that there are two distinct different parties in the United States. Despite how much Lieberman was pandering to the Republicans' interests, he was a Democrat. Why, then, does the Republican media machine feel the need to comment on a race that has absolutely nothing to do with them? Furthermore, why does the national media feel that their opinions on the subject are newsworthy? Admittedly, they have more of a relationship with the matter than most of the talking heads, in that they are actually involved in politics, but they are still not Democrats, and therefore should not be involved in internal Democrat affairs.

Moving on, there was another interesting post from David Brooks (subscription required) in the New York Times, where in he states: "There are two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America. There is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the McCain-Lieberman Party." Perhaps he describes a situation I've long agreed with better than I can. There are some serious problems in the United States governmental system. In the nuanced world of numerous policy issues and more numerous opinions on those policies, there is just no more room for the Democrat/Republican dichotomy, it has long outlasted its usefulness in representing the interests and viewpoints of the American people. (*cough* If, indeed, it was ever designed for that particular purpose. *cough*) Of coure, with the rest of his op-ed piece, I vehemently disagree. For instance, his characterization of the results as reflective of "emotional tribalism" is a little short-sighted, not to mention simplistic. And, more to the point, what is so "extremist" in being completely against the War in Iraq? (If someone could post a comment to explain this to me, I would be grateful.) After wistfully imagining the party platform of this supposed McCain-Lieberman party (as if those two would agree on enough issues to form a coherent political platform), Mr. Brooks leaves off with an interesting pointed barb: "But amid the hurly-burly of the next few years — the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi [Editor: Why does he specifically mention Speaker Pelosi?], a possible economic slowdown — the old parties could become even more inflamed. Both could reject McCain-Liebermanism." I know Mr. Brooks isn't any kind of "professional journalist," but it's still unseemly for even a pundit to engage in this kind of subjective fortune-telling.

The Daily Show commented admirably on the election results, with Samantha Bee helping to provide context.