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

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.

Tim Russert: 5/7/1950 - 6/13/2008

Tim Russert Died of a heart attack on Friday. Tim Russert was one of the few reporters left who had the ability to speak truth to power. He could be trusted to ask hard questions about real issues to politicians and when they tried to weazel out of it with rhetoric or prefabricated statements, he would follow up with more tough questions and hold their feet to the fire. His dedication to honest journalism displayed a respect for the average people that is absent in most news coverage today in the old media. The professional respect and dedication he showed are why he is one of my heros. The world is a better place for him having been in it.

Bush Seeks Coalition Against The Troops

Since the run-up to the war in Iraq anyone who has questioned the Bush administration has had to endure ad hominem attacks on their patriotism and accusations that they don't support the troups. But it has been the Bush administration that has failed to support the troops. If you are like me, when Rumsfeld attempted to justify the lack of adaquate but available armor plating on hum-vees, you were so overcome with rage that you passed out half way through the press conference. The hypocracies and outrages continue even in these late hours of the dark years of the Bush administration as the President has promised to veto an expansion of the GI Bill.

This is particularly significant in relation to war profiteering, the topic an earlier posting on this very blog. The members of the administration who ducked out of military service and their friends and business associates rake in the cash while overcharging the government on essentials for the troops, telling the manufacturers not to include available additional armor, force wounded soldiers to live in decrepid conditions, and deny expansion of the GI bill. When the government is being overcharged here its you and I that are being screwed in the pooper.

These soldiers have taken it on the chin from this administration and continue to step up and volunteer to serve this country. It is a true testiment to the indominable spirit of the United States soldier.

It's OK we killed him, he was a pervert.

Its been awhile since we linked to a tazer story but don't think that is because there have not been any. This little gem comes from one of our more violent states. The article has no indication about what happened making it difficult to ask our typical question. Consequently, I point out that this news outlet has chosen to make half of the short article about the crimes this man had previously committed. As if to say, don't worry, this only happens to bad people, he deserved to die, you are safer now, let your fear justify their violence.

Sabre Rattling?

Israeli citizens living along the border had a rude awakening, which was initially feared to be Qassam rocket attacks. Unfortunately for everyone who can read this, there are tensions, to say the least, on both sides of the border. In Lebanon, among long-standing political deadlock and the assassination of their military leader, Hezbollah has replenished its arms to pre-2006 war levels. Meanwhile, on the Israeli side of the border, the Israeli Defense Forces are training in the ways they have improved their vaunted Merkava tanks in light of deficiencies discovered during the aforementioned Israeli invasion.

The UN General Secretary, perhaps desperate to enforce UNSC Resolution 1701, has sent a letter to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak about the situation. If I had to guess and paraphrase:

Dear President Hosni Mubarak,

Get me on this one and I will owe you big!

Your BFF,

Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary-General

On a more serious note, Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah official, whom was reportedly assassinated by Israel by sources of no repute, was actively involved in facilitating international cooperation, such as "bringing members of the Iraqi Shi'ite Mahdi Army to the Lebanese Beqa'a valley, where they trained in paramilitary methods," amongst other allegations. However, again, I would advise one to judge the quality of the source before completely swallowing either side.

The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments, on the other hand, are pulling all of its civilians out of Lebanon for fear of violence.

And the addition of the group of vessels off the coast of Lebanon, led by the USS Cole, has brought its own added significance to the dangerous situation.

With the Israeli government looking ready to apply its lessons learned and vindicate a troubled administration, the entire situation is a tense powder keg that is ready to explode. I, for one, hope that this entire affair turns out to be another tempest in a teacup. However, as the Lebanese military moves to the highest state of readiness, the question should be raised, "What about the children?" Or, why isn't this story more of a headline in the mainstream media?

Jihad!

You cannot do this to my people! Your insipid behavior is boorish when contained within national boundaries, but becomes a fount of outrage when you export your stupidity and crash YouTube. How dare you attempt to interfere with my entertainment! How dare you impose nationalism on the log cabin! How dare you appeal to the base stupidity that you are attempting to fight!

Because of this, I feel a personal sense of responsibility to post the videos that were supposed to be suppressed. As for why anyone would want this to be suppressed, one can only imagine. As hard as this guy is to listen to, I expect his opponents would want anyone and everyone to listen to Geert's madness. For whatever it's worth, I hope the government of Pakistan is incredibly unhappy. Unfortunately for you, your most fanatical ideological opponents in the West are just as crazy as the extremists that seek to impose an ultraconservative version of Sunni Islam.


Part 1


Part 2

The Child-Man

Not long ago a shrill bitter woman published an op-ed decrying the contemporary propencity of men in their late twentys to delay marriage and career advancement. Many outlets of the old media recognized the inflamitory nature of her insult and decided to piggyback on its ratings generation powers by printing articles like this. (freedom hating British!)

Most responce to the author has been either an attempt to counter the assumptions in the article or to simply disagree with the author or the traditional notions of success. My contention is that her position is immoral.

This is best explained from a Kantian perspective; Hymowitz is treating all western males as means to an end rather than ends in themselves. To use the language of feminism, she is objectifying men. Or to describe my own moral outrage; Hymowitz has no right to declare that I be of use to her.

An Insider's Look

Chez Pazienza, now a blogger for Huffington Post, writes about his job experience at CNN, how they fired him for his opinions, and offers a behind the scenes look into the daily operations of CNN's newsroom. As one might expect it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the problem lies. As Mr. Pazienza says himself, "I watched my bosses literally stand in the middle of the newsroom and ask, 'What can we do to not lead with Iraq?' -- the reason being that Iraq, although an important story, wasn't always a surefire ratings draw. I was asked to complete self-evaluations which pressed me to describe the ways in which I'd 'increased shareholder value.'"

Let's see if his stance is as popular and as powerful as he believes. Sure, the bloggers of the world outnumber those in the traditional mainstream media news industry, however these bloggers are also, for the most part, apathetic and ignored by the powers that be, a form of institutional resistance to the new trend towards micro economies. Sure, an army of people, armed with laptops and vitriolic opinion are a force to be reckoned with here in this new information sphere that is undergoing continual evolution as users continuously provide new content and context, but they have not overcome spatial issues. For instance, there is no actual demonstration of power that would come from all of the bloggers who are passionate about a particular issue, such as voting reform, march together for their beliefs. Unfortunately, the real world gets in the way all too often, as the numerous qualified, intelligent bloggers have more to lose than gain by participating in such a demonstration.

The Mainstream Media

What is the Mainstream Media? How often do people think about this phrase? Does it have a commonly accepted definition? Why is there such a problem with what is commonly referred to as the Mainstream Media? All of your questions answered, but first a message from our sponsors.



Without a doubt, the Mainstream Media is one of the buzzwords of our modern society, with close to 11 million results on a Google Search, and its own convenient acronym to use with blogging, MSM. Interestingly, 'mainstream media' doesn't return any results on Google Trends, but MSM does, as it apparently means something in Spanish. But somewhere between the opinions of Noam Chomsky, the Wikipedia page on Mass Media, and the homepage of the Mainstream Media Project, lies a very tangible effect that I think we've already seen a little of. Coming up, how the MSM impacts your daily life, but first a message from one of our sponsors!



As Charlie Savage pointed out in the Boston Globe, which, as of printing is one of only a handful of mainstream news media outlets to publish anything about this most recent signing statement. Some bloggers and organizations, however, have taken issue with Bush trying to impose a foreign policy upon the next President. Bush, of course, is doing nothing but acting in a unilateral fashion.

Anyone else have that age old feeling of disenfranchisement?

I was perusing the Cnn.com, as part of my regular late night masochism session, looking for some clues as to what is going on with the electorate. How come the same pundits who are so horribly wrong about policy are surprisingly correct when it comes to predicting elections? As a vehement Ron Pauloholic I was optimistically expecting well above 10% from Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary. (By the way, can we strip them of their state motto: Live Free or Die because no one truly free would vote for Hilary Clinton, well maybe as a joke?) The acceptable Jack Cafferty echoed that idea before the primary on CNN, though none of his co-workers agreed. As we all know, as well read (five points to anyone who coins a new term to replace "well read" in regards to getting their news from Youtube and Log Cabin videos) politicos, Ron Paul did not even hit 10% in New Hampshire, and has done similarly or worse since, in Wyoming and Michigan. On CNN.com they have some exit polls from Michigan, and one of them asked the voter, who they think is the candidate that will best bring much needed change. Then they broke down who those people voted for. For example, 28% of Republican voters thought John McCain will best bring about much needed change, and 88% of those people voted for McCain. Well, 12% of Michigan Republican primary voters thought Ron Paul would best bring about much needed change (that figure alone angers me for being low.) However, only 48% of those people voted for him. In summary, 6% of the Michigan Republican primary electorate thought that Ron Paul would be the best person to change this country for the better, but decided not to vote for him. Motherwhat? YOU PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ME INSANE!

At one time in our lives we have all either supported a "fringe" candidate, or knew someone who did. If you are one of the people who supported the "fringe" candidate, then you heard, almost every time you tried to proselytize for your boy, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." If you are not someone who supported a "fringe" candiddate, then you are that asshole who said, "I'm not gonna throw my vote away." Yet they rarely attack that candidate on the issues, on hizzer policy and cred, street or otherwise. I figure this is either because they agree with the candidate but are afraid to vote for himmer, like our Michigan 6%, or they are uninformed of him, a number likely much higher than 6%.
I was watching a fall 2000 Charlie Rose episode on Youtube that had a number of political experts analyzing the first Gore-Bush debate from that election. A couple times they referenced a poll that asked about people's impressions of the candidates, and seemingly used it as evidence of what the candidate actually is. I thin I only explicitly noticed it because I was able to look at these talking heads with a very 20/20 perspective. However, this is an hourly occurrence on every news network, newspaper front page...and most blogs, for that matter. Just because a poll says most people THINK a candidate is something, does not make him so. And for the media to spin in that way, makes it not only self-fulfilling but that number can increase like a snowball, and then simply becomes fact. It is circular logic that doesn't even have a factual base to turn on itself.

There are hundreds of way the propaganda machine, sorry, "media", distorts and hides the truth. There are many ways in which it, eh...for lack of a better word, BRAINWASHES people into voting a certain way. As bad as it is that there are elections being rigged at the polls, after the polls, and before the polls, by not allowing people to vote, elections are also being stolen through propaganda. Remember, why steal something forcefully or stealthily when you can just trick someone into giving it to you?

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.

Wow...

Wow...

So, by my reckoning the main questions are, who sold these nuclear secrets? And which nuclear secrets were they? Does Israel have the information to make the bunker buster nuke?

The more valid question, though, is how fast can this be ignored by the mainstream media?

On a lighter note, here is a list of close calls involving nuclear weapons during the cold war. #4 is my favorite.

He's Not Your Crazy Uncle

Former Senator Mike Gravel, though cut from the ABC News debates, is keeping himself busy campaigning in the next primary state, New Hampshire.

He's winning acclaim for his opposition to the war. In my reasoned opinion, he's the only candidate on the Democratic side of the Presidential ticket that has any credibility on the issue. My only criteria, of course, being that they have some kind of plan to pull the country out of the war, regardless of Mr. Bush's best intentions.

Another policy worth noting is that he is the only candidate addressing the failures of our representative government, and the secrecy surrounding the Bush administration. Again, he is the only candidate with any credibility on this issue, as he is responsible for making the Pentagon Papers public in the 1970s. They may call him the dark horse of the field, but I might remind that it took only one horse to take down Troy. However, instead of a horde of Greek soldiers, within lies a large group of people who do not typically vote, but are newly motivated by the war and the various other misguided polices of the Bush administration.

I, for one, hope that Mike Gravel continues to campaign (with video goodness!) as though this presidential race matters. So, after the mainstream media pushes Ron Paul and Mike Gravel out of the presidential races on either party ticket, perhaps their supporters can find common cause in an independent Paul/Gravel '08 ticket. "We're more credible than Stewart/Colbert!" So, although Dodd and Biden have dropped out (by the way, Richard Adams of the Guardian, fuck you, because you can't edit this commentary), some will continue to care that Mike Gravel is still out fighting for freedom. $400,000 will go a long way, I am sure.

Here's a list of his upcoming sightings in New Hampshire, along with those of a few other people that feel they can contribute to the national dialogue.

By the way, why did Keith Olbermann fallaciously announce Sen. Gravel's departure from the race? Did he try to FOX News the Democratic race?

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEDIA_OWNERSHIP?SITE=RIPAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

There is already too much media consolidation resulting in poor news coverage. There is too much group think among media sources when important stories get ignored because CNN is covering a skiing squirrel or cat fashion show. Or for that matter a human fashion show. You're fucking CNN for fuck's sake! The group think has almost completely ignored the candidacy of viable candidates like Ron Paul.

The old media fucked up big time in the run up to the war in Iraq and during the 2000 presidential election. If they want trust and respect back they better start fucking earning it with real hard hitting investigative journalism, instead of the kind of fluff that bloggers can fill the world with. They like to assume they are more ligitimate than us but I say the burden of proof is on them now. And that burden is one of the preponderance of evidence.

For entertainment purposes I am not so sure media consolidation is that bad. I may be confusing correlation with causation but market saturation and a vast empire seems to have given those like Ted Turner and Disney the freedom to create specialised networks for a narrow audience that would sink a network like NBC who has to stick with bland "entertainment" that appeals to noone but at least doesn't offend most. The increased venues for creativity may also simply be a result of the managment style of the Turner corporation.

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.

Proof: Ron Paul is Systematically Ignored

Take a look at this little tidbit. The mainstream news probably won't report this; in fact it is fairly relevant from the graphs that Ron Paul, while enjoying by far the highest search volume, is consistently and systematically ignored by news outlets.


Google Trends: Presidential "Front Runners" and Ron Paul

They cannot destroy all the evidence that "they" are trying to gain complete control. The only problem is that we have to work so hard to find it.

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.

Paradox?

If a major mainstream news organization goes through a entire article on the 'electability' of the Republican candidates without even mentioning Ron Paul's name, does it mean that he is not electable? Or that the news organization in question isn't as mainstream as they would like to think?