Thoughts from Idaho

Kos Brings up ID-01 on Dailykos

2006-07-26T10:15:00.000-07:00

But now the GOP is worried about their seat in freakin' Idaho? It's true, as the Republicans betray in their "Retain Our Majority Program" list.

[snip]

This is nothing short of remarkable. Nebraska? Wyoming? Idaho? The potential for November seem to get bigger by the day. Now I am still pessimistic, in large part because of our turnout woes, in part because of the GOP's ability to motivate, energize, and turnout their core base in what will be a base election. But there is clearly reason to hope. You know what this all means, right? That no one has an excuse to sit this election out. People-power requires you guys to hit the pavement on behalf of your local Democrats. If Idaho can have a congressional seat in play, there's something happening in your backyard that can change this country for the better.

Here's what I said in the comments:

Grant came to our Drinking Liberally night in Moscow (The town the Uni of Idaho is in) way back before the primary. He was awesome! Even though we were mostly 20- somethings, he could appeal to us and our issues. He spoke clearly about his issues and wasn't afraid to call himself a democrat, even if he's a touch moderate for my tastes. I personally think he has what it takes to take ID-1.

I think so because ID- 1 has two large urban areas that have been trending purple for a while: The Cour- d'Alene area (one of the fastest growing areas of the nation) and the Treasure Valley- the suburban half of our capital, Boise. Not only are these areas trending liberal given their urbanization, their growth has been fueled by large influxes of west coast residents looking for simpler (and cheaper) living. It can't be understated how much Idaho has grown in the last 6 years since the census.

I'm not saying ID-1 is the next Berkeley, but maybe a Bosman, MT. Regardless, I'm looking forward to these races coming up; we just might have a blue Idaho a la Montana. But as Kos stated, it's going to take bodies and money. I'm still in college, so I can't flood the money in. What I can do is once I get back to school, I can work for Grant. I'm going to do what I can to get my State Blue. You?

I am in no way affiliated with Grant. Just excited!

What a Great Song

2006-07-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

And catchy too:

2006-07-18T16:18:00.000-07:00

Bad Religion - Sorrow

testing...

From the Mouths of Babes...

2006-07-12T14:14:00.000-07:00

The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. [...] You can tell just how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain.
School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals. But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth.
Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become. But Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag's real meaning remains.

Charlotte Aldebron, wrote that in '02 for a competition in her 6th grade English class while attending Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine. Four years later, it seems even more relevant.

I'm not Dead...

2006-06-27T14:25:00.000-07:00

Just posting at my brand-spankin' new blog. It has a different style and take on things than this blog. I did it party because I'm schizo, party for the latent artist in my blood, and partly for selfish, ego- inflating reading. So either read it or accept my 'niener niener niener.'

Republicans Shoot in Feet. Story at 11.

2006-06-21T11:44:00.000-07:00

Here's my tangent. The guts is down there.
Summer is great. Except for the fact that it is 3 of the 4 months that I work during the year (Because let's face it: College is cake compared to 9-5's), I do enjoy the season of my birth. This is the big reason that I haven't been posting much. I've been reading, BBQing, yardwork... -ing and a myriad of other things that aren't politics. That is, until I read me some Billmon:

Despite record low approval ratings, House lawmakers Tuesday accepted a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500.The 2 percent cost-of-living raise would be the seventh straight for members of the House and Senate.
Associated Press
House says yes to $3,300 pay raise
June 14, 2006
____________________________ A bid to boost the U.S. minimum wage failed Tuesday as Republicans in the House of Representatives pushed back an effort by Democrats to force a vote on the measure. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said last week that he wanted to hold off on debating minimum wage legislation until possibly after the November elections. House Majority Leader John Boehner also said he probably wouldn't allow the legislation to reach the House floor this week.
Bloomberg News
Bid to boost minimum wage suffers setback
June 20, 2006

I have to admit, even I didn't think the political pimps in control of our national whorehouse would have the gall to sneak through a pay raise for themselves, then turn around a week later and kill the first increase in the minimum wage in almost ten years. Even I wouldn't have imagined they would think they could get away with it. Not in an election year. I guess it's their way of showing Tom DeLay they don't need him around to act like a pen full of swine with a taste for eating their own feces. The Bug Man may be gone, but his pestilence remains.I was gitty here. Could the GOP really have the gall to pull off this bone-head of a move? Didn't someone go, "Wait a sec, boys, this might not be a wise political decision this year."?

But what it really indicates, I think, is the complete confidence the GOP majority now places in the chronic amnesia of the American voter -- and the willingness of the corporate media complex (particularly its broadcast arm) to avoid doing or saying anything that would jog the patient's memory, at least when doing so might directly damage the interests of a powerful business constituency.

Thank god for the meta-memory of the blogs. We're not going to let this one slip through the cracks just as we're going to remind people that these republicans have screwed every pooch they can find and then brag about it. Put this into the file titled, 'Reasons to kick the republican bastards out of Washington, vol MCMXXIII.'

Blogger's on the Fritz

2006-06-08T10:23:00.000-07:00

I'll post meaningfully once the wait for blogger.com to load doesn't drive me to suicide.

Keep your Eyes on the Prize

2006-06-05T22:20:00.000-07:00

No one is going to deny that the Hate Amendment being proposed and debated in the Senate is a blatent pander. Anyone existing in reality will agree that it has no hope of getting the supermajority it requires to pass. But unfortunatly, by ever so accurate gut tells me that all we're going to hear about politics this week is the DMA.

With Iraq, Iran, gas prices, the economy, New Orleans and the new hurricane season, the Cheney Administration deemed this the time to unveil their 'Defense of Marriage Amendment'. Imagine that we are a hunter. For the last, oh... 6 years, we've been hunting for an elusive prey. We're of so close, we have it in our sights. Now, we've been thrown a distraction; something to attempt to take our minds off of what we've been gunning after for so long. So in other words, do not lose sight of our goal.

This is nothing more than a distration meant to take our minds off of what really matters: The mistakes of this administration that are much too common to be acceptable for a governing body. This is all about taking our minds off of Iraq, off of the Katrina mess, off of actually doing what we can do as citizens and holding these criminals accountable.

Keep your eyes on the prize: November.

No post today

2006-05-31T12:22:00.000-07:00

It's the first honest to goodness day here in Sun Valey and in all honesty, I'd rather be outside than writing a blog for you chumps. But fear not. With any luck, I'll get sunburned again and be stuck inside for friday.

Memorial Day blogging

2006-05-29T12:00:00.000-07:00

On this day of days, there's much on the blogs about patriotism and what we should do as citizens of this great nation. I cannot come close to the eloquence of many of the writers I read, so out of vanity I won't try. I will however quote a line from pachacutec at Firedoglake that I thought was the absolute best thing to add to Patrick Henry's famous quote. Speaking of the fallacy of a 'War on Terror', he added:

Give me liberty or give me death. Take your "terror" and shove it.

Happy Memorial Day.

I found a "Must Read"

2006-05-25T11:28:00.000-07:00

I know it's a cliche for bloggers to post MUST READS, but I broke my own, oh so strict M-W-F blogging schedule to ask you to read a post. "Mutinyblogging Pours the First Drink" is a wonderful read about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, Iran, and well, Mystery Science Theater 3000. Here's the only paragraphs I want to post, because it is definately worth reading the whole thing:

As I was chatting with my Ukrainian friend on that lake 10 years ago, a little paddle boat came up. It was a grandfather and his grandson, and neither one spoke English very well. The older man was trying to say something to us in Finnish. We figured out pretty quickly he was drunk, but we didn't figure out he was blind until he stepped where the dock wasn't and fell into the lake. Even in the summer, it's still pretty fucking cold in a Finnish lake in the middle of the night. So we helped him out and built a fire.

For each of us growing up during the last days of the Cold War, myths were told and shattered, and we'd entered a new age when we could do our small part together to build a better future. It wasn't much, but a godless communist and a racist capitalist were warming up a soaking-wet, blind, drunken, old Finn, and we didn't need to win a war for that to happen. As we navigate a difficult situation with Iran, America needs leaders who are not afraid to acknowledge that the people of Iran are human beings, and that calls for isolating them are not a strategy for defeating them, but a way to preserve the myths that provide a clearer path to war.

Tehran

2006-05-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

In your plane in the blue sky
You roam again
Words that echo in your mind
Make your heart beat faster
This is no Vietnam
We will win in Iran

The president said let it ride
Islam be damned
Make your last stand
In Tehran

Warrior, the time bombs
About to go
What will you feel
Will you ever wonder
If the man that's in your sights
Ever kissed his girl goodbye

The captain said kill or die
Islam be damned
Make your last stand
In Tehran

Great Satan
Our flags of burning

Soon America may find
Its young man in the sand
Where there casualty
Is just a number
In Iran

The president said let it ride
You will be damned
Make your last stand
In Tehran

Tehran
The Offspring
The Offspring

What do you get when you pack shit together?

2006-05-19T13:47:00.000-07:00

A whole lot of packed shit. Tristero at hullabaloo takes a look at winger rhetoric:

In today's Times, Lauren Winner writes:
If we are truly to help our teenagers adopt the countercultural sexual ethic of abstinence until marriage...

This is all of a piece with modern rightwing propaganda style, to pack as much loopy nonsense as possible into every sentence. This makes it exceedingly difficult to confront and rebut, but not because there's a solid argument to "engage."

[...]

Firstly, the sheer amount of garbage that needs to be cleared away all but requires, as it does here, a response longer than the original winger passage. Secondly, the whackiness of many of the secondary assertions makes it extremely easy to get distracted onto tangents - for example, into a debate on exactly what is meant by "countercultural." Thirdly, the effect is literally paralyzing and intimidating. To read the word "we" in this context stops us (heh heh) dead in our tracks - huh? - and then "we" wonder what's wrong with us that "we" aren't focused on helping us make our kids' teen years as miserable as they possibly can be.

Finally, notice the appropriation and inversion of liberal/lefty rhetoric. We wish to help our teenager. We are the counterculture, sticking it to The Man. This is very common and very old. The early pro-coathanger activists would adapt Beatles songs and old 60's protest chants ("All we are saying, is give life (sic) a chance") and Lauren Winner is steeped in that tactic. And what are "we" gonna do in retaliation? It's not as if there are that many compelling rightwing songs around to rip off ("The Ballad of the Brie Ballet," maybe? Nah...).

I see this everywhere. By burying a shaky argument in a pile of crap, you force anyone looking for the point to dig through that shit to get to the nugget at the middle. And you know what? It's such a lame point, that most of the time, you don't feel vindicated at the end. I've about given up on trying (for the time being) just because it takes so much effort to figure out what I already know: The winger is an idiot.

This packing tactic was, if not pioneered by him, surely brought to a new level of obnoxiousness by Robert Novak many, many years ago, when he would ask a Democrat a trick question filled with screwy righty assumptions that simply would have to be dealt with before the question even could be addressed, thus enabling Novak to accuse the hapless Dem of wimpiness and evasion.

In formal debating, you need to be able to pick out and dispute the point of your opponent. In formal debating, you are both arguing from the same field as well. Yet in the real world, people have different world views (sorry right wingers, not everyone sees the world in black and white). When we start debating with someone arguing from a completly asinine frame, we can lose our way, especially when they're blowing as much smoke out their ass as they can.

I'm trying something new: Ignore these pieces. There is no point in going in when all you get is shit on your hands (so to speak). When I come across an honest to goodness rational piece about differences between those of us in the real world and those stuck in Manichean- land, I'll give it a try. Until then, good luck with all that shit.

A Rose by Any Other Name....

2006-05-17T13:07:00.000-07:00

The creation of the Plumbers Unit (officially: the White House Special Investigations Unit) was just one of a series of semi-legal or flat-out illegal steps taken by the Nixon cabal to investigate leaks of classified information.

...

The original goal -- or at least, the stated goal -- of these efforts was to plug leaks. But the program quickly metastasized into an all-purpose domestic spying/political dirty tricks operation, beginning with the burglery of Ellberg's psychiatrist's office in an effort to find dirt that could be used to blackmail and/or discredit him. The entire operation was eventually transferred to CREEP (Nixon's 1972 reelection committee), where it generated an increasingly bizarre array of schemes -- like G. Gordon Liddy's idea of luring delegates to the 1972 Democratic convention onto offshore prostitution barges, again for blackmail purposes. The plan failed, however, after the Kennedy family insisted on a group discount.

But seriously.

I Love Billmon's writing. Well, at least when he gets around to it anyway (But that's just the pot calling the kettle black). He has an eloquence about his writing that is mirrored by a growing number of writers, such as Digby and the wonderful bloggers at Firedoglake. What I like most is how succinct Billmon's application of history repeating itself is.

My point is that the progression from national security leaks to leak investigations to political dirty tricks to an all-out assault on the Constitution is a movie we've already watched before. True, the remake is playing out a little differently -- the Cheney White House didn't have to create its own Directorate of Dirty Tricks because the official organs of state security are all on board, even if some of them had to be press ganged. And the neoplumbers haven't had to worry nearly as much about Congress finding out, or doing anything to stop them it even if it did. Liddy's "love boat" idea may not have been so crazy after all.
But basic pattern still seems to hold -- small crimes (or at least, less egregious ones) lead to bigger crimes. Indeed, the big crimes can quickly come to seem imperative, if the earlier crimes are to be kept secret. Bud Krogh, the original plumber, has speculated that the Watergate coverup might never have happened if Nixon hadn't known that the Ellsberg break in (and all those other abuses) were also out there waiting to be discovered. And of course, having given the green light to the cover up, Nixon and company had to commit even more crimes to try to cover up the cover up. Once you get on that particular express train to hell, there's no getting off.

It's a hard correlation to ignore. The only big dfference here is that the administration as a whole is behind this one, despite the best efforts of the President. I find it hard to think that anyone presented with even the most bare- bones of basic frames of this administration's schemes in the grey area of legality wouldn't connect the dots. And yet, after watching MSNBCBSFox for a couple of days, there is hardly anything about our own Watergate. I see two reasons for this: Either we haven't had a hotel to name the scandal after yet, or there's been a willing omission of it from the traditional media.

There is an interest in it. Just read over the liberal blogsphere for a day (Or just firedoglake for an hour for a quick hit of it all) and you will find millions of people interested in what the media is not telling us. Perhaps that's the problem, or at least the solution: What we want to hear is not covered by the traditional media. They'll claim lack of a market for the story most likely. They're worse than a child when it comes to attention span. Give a story a day or two, and it's gone. Unless of course a young white female is in trouble, then the story will last for weeks on end.

But anyway, let's get this rant back on track:

The real lesson of Watergate is that the two phenomena -- national security absolutism and good old-fashioned political ratfucking -- are joined at the skull, like inseparable Siamese twins. You can't have one without the other, particularly in a system that is otherwise designed to prevent the kind of radical accumulation of power the Nixon and Bush II White Houses represent.

That's why it's so easy to suspect that the current drip drip drip of revelations will eventually show the Cheneyites indeed have followed in Tricky Dick's criminal footsteps -- if not to the very end, then at least past the point of no return. And the ABC News story just might point the way.

So there may be salvation yet. The traditional media may get out of that funk of non-admission of government wrongdoing its been in for the last 5 1/2 years (what an odd number for it to be... I wonder what happened in January 2000...). But my gut sends a signal telling me not to hold my breath. And if Stephen Colbert has taught me anything, it's that great people listen to their gut.

Idaho is good for small businesses

2006-05-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

According to Inc.com ("The Daily Resource for Entrepreneurs"), Idaho is quite the place for small businesses to start up. In a recently released survey, many of Idaho's major cities made the list. Our star player is Cour d' Alene at #5. Not to be outdone, Idaho Falls is #10. Further down the list is Boise- Nampa at #48, Pocatello at #66 and Lewiston is rocking #277. Remember that this is a national survey, so even 277 is nothing to sneeze at.

What does this mean for the Gem State? It's good news. Their methodology "puts the focus on job growth, which we believe is the best measure of a region's economic vitality." This shouldn't be a suprise to anyone living in Idaho, especially for the last 5 years or so. I know my humble home town of Hailey has seen houses go up faster than Knapweed in an open field. That is one of the most obvious signs of the job growth our region has been seeing, and I'm sure this is emblematic of the rest of the state (Or at least these cities and their surrounding communities).

More on Inc.com's methodology:

To compile the rankings, Inc. measured current-year employment growth, as well as average annual job growth over the past three years and compared job growth in the first and second halves of the period comprising the past 10 years.

So despite our Idiot- in- Chief's best attempts to screw the little guy (which just goes to show you how resilient the economy is to the bumbling of fools), Idaho is doing all right.

I just know there's a "Godless Liberal" behind this one

2006-05-04T09:19:00.000-07:00

I was reading me some good ol' Firedoglake this morning, taking in a post that quotes digby again tearing apart the meme about a liberal media when I came across this little gem:

...On 6/6/06, Ann Coulter will release her new book...

Umm, exsqueeze me? Did you just say that Ann Coulter's new book is going to be released on the sixth day of the sixth month of the sixth year of this millenium? Oh pinch me, oh pinch me...

Availability: Will ship week of June 6th - just in time for Father's Day.

Please say I'm not the only one who thinks this is funny...

"Priests and imams to play ball in a game of two faiths"

2006-05-02T10:43:00.000-07:00

I couldn't think of a better title than the one of the story.

With just over a month to go before the World Cup, a team of imams will play a team of Christian priests. “It’s been difficult to find a rabbi who will referee on the Sabbath,” sighs the Rev Christopher Jage-Bowler, “but we are trusting in God.”

The first thing that came to this blogger's mind was "This is Rad." In this crazy, dyadic world of cultural sensitivity with a bit too much outright religious bigotry, it's refreshing to see something like this come across our radars. Not to mention the author's addition of some good old tongue- in- cheek humor that the British are so good at.

Switching the game from next Saturday to Friday has been ruled out by the Muslim side, since this is their day of prayer. The Christian clergy, meanwhile, have a problem with Sunday. The 44-year-old vicar, mastermind of the seven-a-side match, is confident that the problems will be resolved before kick-off.

The imams are ready to abandon their Kufi hats and the vicars will leave their cassocks in the vestry in favour of orthodox football kit.

I wish I could be in Berlin to see that game, just for the off the wall nature of it all. Here are men of two religions --two religions which have not had the most "friendly" of relations for the last 1400 years-- playing a game of Fußball. Not trying to kill the other for heresy is a good start to building some bridges, especially if the losing team is good sports about it.

The Republican '06 Platform Speech

2006-04-22T00:32:00.000-07:00

Neighbours, nobody loves you like we do.

Neighbors, your government has triumphed in finally making you a public fit for the 21st century. Never before has a governing body shown so much concern for the economic well-being of its subjects. Today we have insulated you from countless factions who threathen your financial viability, such as the poor; the idealistic foreigners still clinging to their childish notions of social welfare. Why, you're even kept uninformed of useless propagandist journalism that reports alleged violations of human rights (We all know they wouldn't have been punished if they hadn't been doing something wrong).

And who better to dispense such blantently evident factoids but a self-appointed authority like myself?

Acid Rain is a thing of the past. Too many possible causes, too little signifigance for our modern thinking public. Besides, industrial manufacturing is at an all time low anyways. Who needs those narrow minded laborers, too many mouths to feed and to much of a burden on the pay roll. Who needs them here in the land of the free-time? Someother ass back-ward country will give us what we need by exploiting its uneducated children anyway.

The Internet has expanded our ability to pacify average americans better than ever by offering fantastical adventures to every corner of the imagination. Your home office is the window to your world, and the heart of your social life. Such reclusive behaviour helps clear the roads and public works from overburden. Like the lower middle-class and others who depend shamelessly on their government. Today you are freer than ever to do what you want, provided you can pay for it!

Remeber, the first word in USA is US!

We have arrived neighbours, we are the priviliged elite!

If you're curious, you should check out the band Bad Religion sometime. Perhaps look up the song "The State of the End of the Millenium" sometime on iTunes, maybe?

Why I'm Scared about War with Iran

2006-04-16T13:35:00.000-07:00

Oh sure, I'm prime draft- age material, but that's not my big concern with War with Iran. If I was drafted, I'd go somewhere away from the front lines, (which is pretty easy to do when you're college educated). I'm more concerned with the very obvious trouble that war would cause internationally. But that still is not what I am most concerned about.

John Laesch is the democratic opponent of Dennis Hastert this cycle. He's a former intel analyst for the military that specialized in Iran. I'll let him say what my biggest concern with an Iran War:

I can tell you exactly what would happen if we were to strike Iran. First, Iranian military forces would shut down the Straight of Hormuz (the choke point through which 35% of the world's oil flows through) and oil prices would skyrocket to a possible $100/barrel.

Here's a pic he has of the straight in question:

I am scared of an economic collapse that would make the Great Depression seem just peachy. The only evidence I have of that (right now) is my gut. But you couldn't deny that you feel that too. This, more than anything I can think of in recent memory shows that the Middle East has us by the balls. It's getting to the point where 'little' things like flare- ups of insurgents in Iraq will send oil prices up. And now there's talk of Iran, and I haven't heard anything about this until this morning.

I used to wonder if the W. administration was stupid, or had some uber- secret plan that made sense some how. Now I know they're just stupid. NO GOOD could come from a war with Iran at all. What we should instead do is appeal to the young Iranians who are starting to think this whole "fundamentalist state" business might not be all it's cracked up to be. Laesch again:

Currently, Iran is a divided country. Young Iranians are on-line and curious about the western world while religious and military leaders suppress any democratic ideas and oppose student protests. The youth of this troubled nation represent hope for a Democratic Iranian government and it would be a shame if we let them down by dropping nuclear bombs on their country. An aggressive pre-emptive strike would give Ahmadinejad credibility and draw more support for his radical agenda.

I just hope that the voters do the right thing and elect democrats all over this nation. We need congress to curtail the actions of our monarch- in- cheif. I'd even settle for one house taken over and two years of stalemate. At least a stick in the mud isn't trying to kill anyone.

What a Bastard

2006-04-10T11:19:00.000-07:00

Rep. Bill Sali (R- Kuna) that is. During the debate over SB 1482 (It basically is a redefinition of abortion in the Idaho lawbooks. At least that's what I could figure out from the bill itself.), Sali was quite the charmer (Stolen from the Spokesman):

The House adjourned in the middle of debate on the informed consent abortion bill, SB 1482, after House Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet of Ketchum and the other Democrats walked out in protest of comments made by bill co-sponsor Rep. Bill Sali, R-Kuna.

[...]
Jaquet objected to Sali’s mentioning of studies that link breast cancer to abortion. A breast cancer survivor, Jaquet said she knows that the link has not been proven.
“If it’s not a good study then we should not be using it,” Jaquet said.
[...]

Newcomb said to Sali, “Why stick your finger in people’s eyes?”

The debate continued, and Sali again cited the studies. Jaquet was seen leaving the House chamber, followed by the other members of her party. Procedural rules mandate that both parties be present on the floor if the House is in session, [House Majority Leader Lawerence Denney (R- Midvale)] said.

God, what an ass. This tard of a Rep. went far enough to piss off the other Republicans, eventially getting chastised by House Speaker Bruce Newcomb (R-Burley):

Newcomb spoke with reporters about Sali, saying "That idiot is just an absolute idiot…He doesn’t have one ounce of empathy in his whole frickin’ body, and you can put that in the paper.”

I'm going to give it to Newcomb, he said the absolute right thing (and with the kind of bite you only see in state politics.)
But I really like what our democrats are doing. Maybe it's because of their super- minority status, but Idaho democrats have balls. They're willing to do the gutsy, red meat acts that really drive us in the base. This walk- out is perfect.

The Army Men Project

2006-04-03T11:06:00.000-07:00

I am a fan of the quirky, the strange, the odd, and anything that makes you stop and actually think for a second (Sure is fun the be around in this day and age, eh?). So that's why I really want to join The Army Men Project. It's real simple:

We’re spreading plastic Army Men around the country and around the globe as small, everyday reminders of the ongoing horrors of the war in Iraq and to serve as tools to foster dialogue, action and resistance to the war.

I love it. It's a low- cost, creative, and really a clever way to get the diologue going-- Not to mention it's some good propaganda for our side. I'm going to do it, so keep your eyes open around Moscow. We just might get invaded.

Petro- Politics and War

2006-03-27T13:53:00.000-08:00

Borah Symposium Blogging Part I

Professor Michael T. Klare gave a speech about Oil, its problems, and the potential for conflict that is more and more inevitable every day. His speech was part of the Borah Foundation's Annual Symposium (Founded for Senator Borah), where topics outlining war and peace are discussed. This year, the topic is "Resource Wars," the first of which was Professor Klare's speech.

Oil is finite. We have consumed half of the oil we know this Earth has. Those 2 Trillion some barrels of Oil is all that we know of, and any debate about more is beside the point: We will be out of it around 2040. The miniscule amounts in debate may extend its viability for months, and "undescovered fields" significant enough to provide more are increasingly becoming more of a dream than reality. Here's the kicker: Most of that 1 Trillion we've comsumed have been burned off in the last 30 years. We are addicted to Oil.

And it isn't just the United States. No, the rest of the industrialized world is vulnerable to its loss as well. More dire, however, is the rise of China and India as consumers of Oil. by 2030, China's gross consumption of Oil will match that of the US, furthering the inevitable crisis over oil. And if the bleak picture is still too rosey for you, think of this: The last areas of significant oil reserves are in hostile nations. Think Iran, Iraq, Western Africa, the Caspian Sea nations, South and East Chinese seas. These areas are either directly hostile to the US and/or rife with their own internal ethno- religious tensions. There should be no doubt that the 21st century is going to be the century of conflict over resources. As man continues to expand, competition for oil, water, agricultural land, and just basic living spaces will increase.

Think I'm kidding? China has laid claim to the seas around it in direct contention with the Phillipines and Japan (Both of which the US is bound through treaties to defend). Both China and the US are jockeying for control and support in the Caspian Sea region. The west coast of Africa is fast becoming an oil rich region (God, it seems, it not without a sense of humor). That is to say nothing of the Middle East. The great powers are entering regions and starting to support nations in an eerily similar way to the Balkans certa 1900's- 1914. One of Prof. Klare's points was that war, once it comes, will be a mirror spark of confict as was the assassination of Arch- Duke Ferdinand. The major nations won't choose war with each other. Rather, it will be through treaty obligations that we will once again engage in a World War.

So what is the big idea of this? We can avoid these wars. It's "simply" a matter of kicking out Oil habit. Our leaders need to sit down and really focus on this (And no, W's foray's into alternative energy don't count. They're a drop in the bucket of the necessary funds to really turn things around). Alternative energy needs to become mainstream energy. We that are on top of the World need to look at our lives and reduce our use of energy and resources so that there's some for others to use. There's no more dreaming or questioning about it: It has come to either we change our ways, or we go to war.

We Are The Cooler Generation

2006-03-23T17:54:00.000-08:00

That's the feeling I get after going over this survey from the New Politics Institute (God it feels good to link to a Progressive Think Tank). According to the survey, the "Millennial Generation", aged 13-28, holds more liberal views than those of Generation X or the Baby boomers. I was particularly pleased with the showing of "Trasitional Millennials" (18-22, and yours truely) and "Cusp Millennials" (19-23):

Transitional Millennials (18-22 years old) and Cusp Millennials (23-28 years old) started their political awareness during the Clinton years. While their political identifications are still not fully formed, the greatest number in both groups tend toward a Democratic party identification and a liberal/progressive ideological orientation, the Transitional Millennials more than the Cusp Millennials. These two older Millennial groups, especially the Transitional Millennials, are more likely than any others to hold opinions considered to be “liberal” or “progressive” across virtually all issue clusters: economic intervention, environmental protection, security, crime, education, and social issues. Finally, these two Millennial groups tend to have relatively positive and optimistic perceptions of the political process and their economic futures.

Do take a look at it. They give breakdowns of how the different generations vote. Most suprising to me is that it is Generation X that is most likely to be conservative; something I didn't expect.

I was suspicious at first....

2006-03-22T10:57:00.000-08:00

But I believe it now:

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative[...]

A study of more than 100 children- turned- adults has been published in the Journal of Research Into Personality a la UC Berkeley. And boy, I am not suprised:

[...]At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Political alignment, being a social construct created by man, is a learned attitude (nuture, if you will, as opposed to biological, or nature). Understanding that, I should say thanks mom and dad. I appreciate it.

The piece is relatively short and a good read. So take a couple of minutes and check it out.

V for Vendetta

2006-03-21T22:09:00.000-08:00

GO SEE THIS MOVIE.

I cannot put it any simpler than that. This is a fantastic movie in any way that I can think of: Great story, superb acting (especially by Ms. Portman), and a timely movie. A mysterious anarchist only known as "V" aims to completly undo the facism and supression over a futuristic Britian.

Though it is taken from a comic written in Britian during the mid 80's, so much in it pertains to today: The ruling Conservative party stays in power through fear and religion, supressing the rights of all peoples under their rule. The media is all but a machine of the government. Anyone that sticks out (dissenters, homosexuals, muslims) is "black- bagged" and never heard from again.

Hugo Weaving, who plays the very theatrical hero V, is remarkable. Even though his Guy Fawkes mask is immoble, he had no problem showing the emotional turmoil that his character goes through in the movie. He as perfect delivery of the many tricky lines he must speak. Stolen shamelessly from imdb.com:

V: This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

And this one:

Evey Hammond: Who are you?
V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what. And what I am is a man in a mask.
Evey Hammond: I can see that.
V: Of course you can. I am not questioning your powers of observation. I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.

So "Remember remember, the fifth of November, The gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot." And see this movie.

SurveyUSA, Idaho, and a ray of sunshine

2006-03-15T19:30:00.000-08:00

SurveyUSA's latest poll show's President Bush at his LOWEST level of approval in Idaho in at least 11 months. Checking in at 50-47% approval to disapproval, the President is in the midst of a 2 month, -16% net change. I've complained before about how Idaho has been quite the cheerleader of the Pro-Bush team. We've fallen to number 4, following Utah (net +13%), Wyoming (+7%), and Alabama (+5%). Only 7 states give Bush a positive rating. After us (+3%), it's Mississippi and Oklahoma (Both +2%) and Nebraska (+1%).

This is a big drop. The past two month's drops are out of the margin of error, in both directions. Where is it coming from? Frankly, I was suprised. Not from where it came from (all sides), but how much. The strongest drops came from Conservative frames: Republican identification, -11% (45% of those surveyed); Conservative identification, -20% (41% of those surveyed); and a whopping -22% for self- identified as Pro- Life (48% of those surveyed). There are more drops found among regular church goers, -13%; women, -14% (50% of those surveyed... Duh.); and 18-34, -17% (33% of those surveyed).

Now what's it mean? To me, this shows that the conservatives in Idaho have finally woken up and smelled the trash. This is step number 1 on us taking over: Dissatisfaction among the base. Midterms are notorious for low turnouts, mostly members of the base of the parties. If the other side isn't fired up, even less of them will go to the polls in November. This gives me even more hope for Mr. Brady, Mr. Grant (who was kind enough to visit Moscow's Drinking Liberally the other night and is invited back any time) and other democratic candidates. I have a lot more hope for the good guys in Idaho now. The dream of a democratic Idaho isn't as much of a pipe dream now. Not to say it's going to be easy, but this is a step in the right direction.

To put it bluntly, "Grey skies are gonna clear up! Put on a happy face..."

We Will Not Be Silenced

2006-03-06T16:44:00.000-08:00

Here's a quickie that really speaks the truth: It's a flash animation that is seriously awesome. Well done animations, a riveting speaker, and a real good message.

Watch it.

Sorry for Slacking

2006-03-06T10:59:00.000-08:00

But Midterms have been getting pretty busy (I think this Real Life thing is a bit of a bore). I have some good ideas, but those need to take a back burner to American Foreign Policy (PolS 339), Political Leadership (PolS 404), Diversity and Stratification (Soc 301) and Criminology (Soc 331) for this week. Thankfully, Spring Break is next week, so I can get some R & R in the Lovely Sun Valley (And maybe some skiing in, too.)

But for some substance, the University has finally given us students more bandwidth, so I can finally listen to internet radio whenever I want, instead of at 4:00am, when the traffic was light enough to allow it. I really like Etherbeat Radio, Groove Salad, and Smooth Jazz. They make great study music. (Just to make sure everyone knows, you need either iTunes or Windows Media Player to listen. Just read the directions on the radio station's sites [Hi mom]).

We Told You So, But That Doesn't Mean We're Happy

2006-02-27T10:34:00.000-08:00

We saw it coming, we liberals. We knew that something would happen that would start a civil war in Iraq. We saw through the lies and deceptions coming from the White House and new that Iraq, regardless of the rationale, was a bad idea in the first place. Though Iraq is still a unified nation (in as much as a ripped sleeve of a shirt is still part of the shirt with its last threads clinging for dear life), it borders dangerously close to oblivion.

But that does not mean we're pleased with how it's gone. The Rude Pundit puts it oh so well:

So let's just say it up front here: over here in Liberalburg, we weren't happy when Ronald Reagan was cozying up to Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. We weren't happy that the United States was backing a brutal, murderous, raping thug, giving him weapons and such. We weren't happy with the first Persian Gulf War. We weren't happy with sanctions that decimated the poorest people in Iraq. We weren't happy that the President wouldn't allow weapons inspectors to finish their work.

We weren't happy with this war to start with, saying, for instance, that a civil war was the inevitable outcome. We're not happy to be proven right. We're not happy, simply, when people are dying for no good cause, with no good outcome on the horizon, and no good way out. Frankly, oh, dear, sweet right wing, on the whole, we'd've rather been wrong and had tens of thousands of people not killed, tens of thousands of America soldiers not wounded. We'd've eaten the crow and, trust us, wonderful, fair right wing, you'd've shoved our faces in the plate of that black bird.

But since we were right, maybe, just maybe, someone oughta pay a political price for being so goddamned wrong. Instead, though, the right's gonna try to turn it around and blame the left and those who "didn't support the war" for its failure. Which would, for all intents and purposes, finally seal the deal on Vietnam redux.

So when the inevitable tide of right- wing talking points try to say liberals are happy as can be that Iraq is ripping itself apart, remember that we find no solace in being right about that that is plain as day. And the day that conservatives realize that will be the first day on the path back to being a rational people.

"A Big Bowl of Bad"

2006-02-22T10:37:00.000-08:00

Someone asked we "what scandals are you talking about?" when I mention the White House (I know, crazy...). I've been thinking about how to put it succinctly for the past few days. Well, Letterman last night was able to cover the Vice President for me. Now if I could just figure out how to put the other ones in the same manner...

"Iraq Apologizes for the Invasion"

2006-02-21T09:57:00.000-08:00

Chief Iraqi leaders said "accidents do and will happen" and apologizing for the trouble the incident had caused the United States. "Our nation is deeply sorry for everything President Bush and his family have had to deal with," the Prime Minister said, his voice a bit raspy but strong.

"We all assume certain risks in what we do, in what activities we pursue," the foreign minister said. "Accidents do and will happen."

Drinking Liberally

2006-02-15T11:54:00.000-08:00

Same Bat Time, same Bat Place.

UPDATE: Just got off the phone with Drinking Liberally. (Turns out that 6 EST is not the same as 6 PST. Who'd a thunk it?) Anyway, we're about to become an offical chapter. Once we get some more things taken care of, (Sara, you're going to get an email about it) we're going to be for real!

In The Face

2006-02-14T01:08:00.000-08:00

Words cannot describe how spot- on the Daily Show is about this.

Crooks and Liars has the Video.

The "Political Crime Wave" Narrative

2006-02-13T13:35:00.000-08:00

I am a big proponent of Framing. In a nutshell, framing is the idea that if you argue with someone using the terms that you decide on, you have already won the debate. The shining example of this is the term "Pro- Life." By using that term, the opponents are now framed as being "Anti- Life." From the get go, they have to say why they are 'against life' even before they start presenting their side of the argument.

A narrative (for the uninitiated) is the over- arching framing term used for a political platform. The small government Republican, for example, is a narrative. Democrats, these days, are lacking a narrative (partly due to the Republican narrative of 'Democrats don't stand for anything', gleefully carried on by the traditional media). What I read this morning is a narrative that I love.

Via Simon Rosenberg, a la MyDD (Emphasis mine):

There is a lot of talk these days about how to best clean up Washington. The answer seems obvious - make a very public example of those who have broken the law, showing that even powerful players in Washington are not above the law. Our message to the American people should be a simple one - we will do whatever it takes to find the lawbreakers who have betrayed the public trust and bring them to justice. We should put the bad guys in jail.

...

When a city faces a crime wave the mayor doesn't call for the toughening of the laws. He first works to catch the criminals and bring them to justice. The same should apply to these Republican scandals, perhaps the most extensive set of ongoing criminal investigations into a governing party in American history. Our first order of business should be to make sure that those in power are doing everything possible to cooperate with the investigators, share what they know with the American people and bring the lawbreakers - regardless of party - to justice.

For the health of our democracy, Republican leaders - Bush, Frist, Hastert - should publicly disclose what they have been doing to help the various criminal investigations. Have they been deposed? Will they testify at the many upcoming criminal trials of their colleagues? Have they turned over relevant documents? Will they give the Justice Department and the FBI more resources to tackle this political crime wave? What are they doing to ensure that the prosecutors are walled off from any political interference? Will they resign if it is found that there was rampant criminal activity on their watch?

It fits so well with everything that's been going on in DC. It fits because frankly, it's the Truth. What do you get when a bunch of thugs and liars are put in charge? A crime wave that just so happens to be overlooked by the powers that be.

I'm also not worried about the hemorrhaging of the Republican Party. Recently, there have been Republicans in DC and state capitals jumping the Bush ship, so to speak, so as to keep their political careers alive. These politicans may very well try to run on a 'reform' platform in the run up to November. But as Glenn Greenwald points out (with comments from kos), they will have much more to deal with than Democrats (A fantastic article, a MUST READ):

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That's because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

...

And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.

The conservatives that support the administration will attack like wild dogs any 'turncoat Republican' that they see as abandoning their Dear Leader. It is already apparent that any Moderate in the Republican party will likely be faced by a hardcore conservative in their primaries this fall. That puts them right where we progressives want them: In a devil's Catch 22 between Moderatism and Conservatism; between jumping Bush's ship, and thus the party, or going down with it like brass on the Titanic. Either way, things are looking better for us every day.

Democrats can win in November. Our party can regain the majority in the House and (if we have some luck) the Senate. Sometime this spring or summer, the party needs to launch it's campaign platform. We need some sort of "Political Crime Wave" narrative. People hate crime. I think it's an issue that will get Joe and Jane voter to the polls in the upcoming midterms. Once we get a majority in either chamber, we can begin to get things back on the right track.

A look at Idaho, Ten Months Out

2006-02-11T15:24:00.000-08:00

Here's a map:

(Sure is pretty to see all that Blue, eh?)

As you can see, Idaho is 2nd Banana to Utah on the Happy Happy Bush Cheer Squad. I'm not going to bother and look at why Utah's so pleased with Bush's work, given how much our 'Honest President' has fallen since November '04.

What's more intriguing is why Idaho is so high up there. What (or rather, who) is it that is keeping his numbers so high? We have all seen the same President, so who is it in Idaho that stands behind him, and who is working tone down that blue, one shade at a time?

I'm thankfull to live in the age that we do, because we have wonderful organizations like SurveyUSA. They track public opinion in all states. Even better, they will survey and track other pollsters to see who is trending too far to one side. Needless to say, they're pretty unbiased.

Anyway, on to the survey in question. The most recent poll I could find was the January 2006 poll. SUSA asked three questions: How well you think the President, your Governor, and your Senators are doing their jobs. For us, that means we can look at how Bush is doing 'round here, along with Kempthorne, Craig, and Crapo. I'd really like to see something for the House, but there will be more of those in the next couple of more.

THE PREZ'NIT

Here is the nice spreadsheet that SUSA gives us for the results of their January 06 poll. President Bush is sitting at 58- 39 in the Gem State. That score is a decent amount off of the national average of lower 40's for both numbers. Now I know I'm not alone in my dissaproval of the President, but who likes the guy?

As is the trend nationally, the Democrats (22% of the electorate) disapprove of Bush (17- 82) and the Republicans (45% of the electorate) approve (89- 8). Independants (31%) however, buck the national trend and break almost even (43- 51). Nationally, Independants are approving of Bush by around 33%. Why the ten point difference? I have no concrete idea, but a few hunches that I'll keep in mind until I can get more data...

What did show up with large differences in SUSA's poll was the regularity of Church attendance. By a whopping 74- 22, regular church attendees approve of Bush. At 43% of the survey pop, this is big. This is where we see his bastion of strength in Idaho. But it is not enough for me. I want to know which churches we're talking about. Is it from the Mormons? The protestants? I doubt us Catholics could do it, but it could be; I don't know.

The counter- group of never go-ers poll at 42- 57. These people are not insignificant, checking in at 33% of the pop. Here again, I want to know who these people are. Are they Athiests, or just lazy (like me)? Are they Urbanites, or rural livers? This amatuer pollster does not know.

THE GOOD OL' BOYS

Our dear Governor is sitting at a lovely 59- 31 right now. Not exactly the thing a Progressive wants to see, but that's what we get in our bastion of conservativism that is Idaho. Just about every demographic likes the guy except for self- identified Liberals at 36- 46- 10 (14% of the pop). Even the democrats were split down the middle at 44- 46.

The story is almost the same for our Senators. 57- 30 for Craig and 55- 29 for Crapo. Again, across the board approval in almost all demographics. At least this time the democrats pulled away from the middle ground. Interestingly, Crapo is polling a little under Craig. Though it is almost always withing the margin of error, Crapo has higher "I don't know's" than Craig. Craig's numbers are always stronger than Crapo's, but still within the MoE. Is Crapo not known quite as much? Is Craig the 'Big Brother Senator', with Crapo playing the part of the puppy- eyed little brother? Could be. (Funny thing, though, democrats disapprove of Crapo more than Craig (33 & 38 app., 48 diss.)

CONCLUSION?

So what does it all mean? Not much. Church attendance seems to be the only divider in Idaho politics (that SUSA uncovered). The bases of the parties are pretty much in line with the rest of the nation. Conservatives self- identify in Idaho at about 42% of the population; moderates at 41%; and us liberals at a paltry 14%. This means that any gains for us Democrats are going to come from Independant moderates. So we're not going to win on a platform of stem cells and higher taxes for social programs. But if we can get a guy like Gov. Schweitzer of Montana and pull off our own Montana Miracle, we just might get to bathe in the light at the end of the tunnel.

When We Are Finally in Bizzarro Land...

2006-02-08T10:54:00.000-08:00

...When I quote Pat Buchanan:

Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.

But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism.

Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths. And like Truman's war in Korea and Kennedy's war in Vietnam, Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war. Isolationists had nothing to do with it. To a man and woman, they opposed it.

But what has done more to radicalize Islam than our invasion of Iraq? Who has done more to empower Islamic radicals than Bush with his clamor for elections across a region radicalized by our own policies? It is one thing to believe in ideals, another to be the prisoner of some democratist ideology.

And my Favorite Part:

...George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime.

Wow, Bizzarro Land sure is pretty, with it's clear, green skies and beautiful, rolling hills of blue grass...

In all honesty, I've been irked by Bush's straw man of an argument against Isolationists ever since he brought it up in his SOTU. I was about to give up finding just the right way to put it, when lo and behold, I get this gift horse. Since it's a bad idea to look it in the mouth, I'll just be on my way.

Drinking Liberally

2006-02-08T01:53:00.000-08:00

Same Bat Time, Same Bat Place.

Hey, Let's Get Together and Vent About Bush!

2006-02-01T11:12:00.000-08:00

Drinking Liberally, exploratory meeting #3. The Alehouse, 8pm. (Right?)

A Quote to Make You Feel Better

2006-01-31T10:11:00.000-08:00

A Great Man once said,

"Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

"These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

"For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves, on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

"The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.

"Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."

(I bolded my favorite parts). I'll let the quote speak for itself.

When Insanity is More Clear than Reality

2006-01-27T11:41:00.000-08:00

You find fafblog!:

Q. Can the president eat a baby?
A. If that baby has suspected ties to al Qaeda, then it's the president's duty to eat it - for the sake of national security.
Q. The president doesn't want to eat sweet, delicious babies. He just wants to protect America from the growing threat of a rogue baby insurgency.
A. Exactly. And nobody will have more compassion for that succulent baby barbecue than him.
Q. How many non-terrorist babies would it be acceptible for the president to accidentally eat in the course of enforcing a rigorous terrorist baby-eating program?
A. First of all, the president would never ever eat a baby unless it was reasonably suspected to be affiliated with possible terroresque program activities. Second of all, do we really wanna start tyin the president's hands when he's tryin to protect everybody from jihadist babies? They could be Islamifying our country's drool supply as we speak!
Q. Sir, I demand the immediate establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Baby-Eating!
A. Just til we win the War on Terror, of course!
Q. And with our sophisticated baby-eating technology we should be taking the Terrorstani capital of Fearlamabad any day now!
A. Of course! But the actual occupation could last quite some time, you understand...
Q. Well, yes. But the fight has to be won. These people want to use terror to destroy our freedom.
A. And that's just un-American.

Liberal Drinking Tonight...

2006-01-25T10:58:00.000-08:00

At the Alehouse (on 6th Street, across the street and a little east from Quizno's) at 8. Well, that's what I remember from last week, so a take it with a grain of salt until otherwise confirmed.

Oh PS: Once we get a settled location, we'll make this an offical chapter of DL, so hold tight.

EDIT: I take that back about 8. I have initiation week stuff to do, so it might not be until 9 that I make it out.

Lessions from Drinking Liberally

2006-01-20T15:29:00.000-08:00

Though it isn't an offical branch yet, I did learn a few things last night, drinking liberally with Sara and her husband:

- Martini's are delicious. However, just because something is titled "Caramel Apple Martini" does not mean it will taste like a Caramel Apple.

- The internet makes you stupid.

- "Patriarchy" is a word that gets easier to say the more you say it.

- Some songs just need to not be on any jukeboxes.

- Bill Nye would totally win a fight against Beakman from Beakman's world.

On Drugs, Harm, and John Stuart Mill

2006-01-17T15:18:00.000-08:00

I have a counter- intuitive stance on drug use. But it won't be that way after you read what I've come to realize about the drug culture in America. So here goes.

I am totally against the use of drugs. Period. However, I fully endorse the legalization of illegal drugs, marijuana being the prime example. I think drugs are a waste of money, time, and have a horrible effect mental clarity and efficacy. I also think that the government has no place in regulating and criminalizing the distribution and use of said drugs. To understand this, I will start with a very famous quote from a prime ideological figure of Liberalism (with a big 'L'):

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

This is what is referred to as the 'Harm Principle'. To put it another way: The government can only regulate that behavior which causes harm to others. Think murder, theft, arson, etc... On the flip side is that the government can't regulate what color shoe I wear (for example) because it doesn't hurt anyone. I see drug use in the same light: No one is hurt when someone sits in their room and gets high. There is no direct connection from lighting a bong to actual harm agianst someone (Unless you're dumb enough to burn yourself, but that's your problem).

It's important to know what harm is, too. Oh sure, that heroin needle isn't going in my arm, but what about my morals and sentiments? Are not they hurt and damaged by it? Yes, sure, absolutly. Does it count as harm? No. It doesn't count as being harmed because my morals and sentiments are just that: Ideas. There is no harm inflicted by me seeing a meth head get high-- in the sense that i am part of the community we reside in-- in as much as saying 2+2=5 will hurt my logical brain. It just doesn't cut is as a necessary condition for 'harm'.

There is an aspect of personal harm here. Doing Meth will definately fuck you up, but that doesn't cut it. Remember, we're discussing Liberalism (with a big 'L') here. This is not about what you do to yourself. What is important is your impact on the community that you are in. As long as it is just you, that's fine.

But here is where we should get more proactive. In my ideal world, you can get whatever drugs you want. You want to do that to yourself, fine. It's your life, and I will not tell you how to live it. But --and this is a big but-- if you harm someone else in the process of getting high, you better watch your ass, because the hammer will come down hard. The government has a resposibility to protect and care for the well being of it's citizens. You get high and stop feeding your kids for three days, it is the government's resposibility to punish you and save your kids. When we become parents, we also gain the resposibility to care for these children emotionally, economically and physically. When you drop the ball and go get high, you harm your children. It is here that the government is obligated to step in a remedy the situation.

This shouldn't be regulated to just drugs, either. It is the same situation with a drunk who passes out before dinner. You could even use this rationale to limit smoking. It is not until the activity actually damages the well being of another that the government needs to step in. That may be stretching it a bit, but you get my point. In a society that (ostensibly) stands for life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, there is some definate hypocrisy in the laws of today. Too much of the drug regulation has been based on personal morals of the law makers. And if you think that just becuase a moral is shared by a majority, it should be law, I'll leave you with another Mill quote:

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.

- John Stuart Mill

Moscow Will Soon Drink Liberally

2006-01-11T21:33:00.000-08:00

It's high time this town got some more liberal parties going on. Sure, primaries and elections are fun, but we should hang out outside of those scantly annual occurences. So we should start a progressive club called Drinking Liberally.

Now if you're unfamiliar (or don't want to check their site out), here's a few rules:

1.) Drink.

2.) Talk politics (optional. Otherwise, see #1)

There's more, but that's beside the point. What is more important is deciding a place and a time. Personally, I'd prefer one of two. Either Monday nights at The Garden (Blue Mondays), otherwise CoeurdAlene Brewing Co. So use this post to discuss.

One Fine Morning

2006-01-07T18:46:00.001-08:00

"What big game are we stalking today, major?"

"Liberals. Check and see what the Wildlife Guide says about 'em."

"The Vanishing Liberal: A beast which once thundered across the American scene in mighty herds. Recently hunted near extinction."

"Gotta be one left around here somewheres... Try the liberal call, boy."

"Welfare! Solar Power! No Nukes!"

"No Nukes! No Nukes"

"GOTCHA!"

"Gun Control! Gun Control!"

*Blam!*

"It's a shame, major. They're more fun than buffalo."

"I think I wounded him!"

"Ow! Socialized Medicine! Socialized Medicine!"

Powerful Stuff

2006-01-05T10:00:00.000-08:00

The Rude Pundit has been touring the devistated areas of New Orleans. He has written of what he's seen, and it's powerful stuff that all six of you should read. I'll start you at part I; he's up to part IV now.

The Battle Plan for the Start of 2006

2006-01-01T16:29:00.000-08:00

Via My Due Diligence, Matt Stoller gives us Troops of Progress a plan for fighting the good fight in the next month:

Our strategy is clear. Scream bloody murder about Sam Alito, the wingnut who wants to overturn Roe vs Wade and turn the Presidency into a dictatorship.
Investigate the wiretapping scandal.
Oppose. Oppose. As Josh Marshall says, oppose.
If we win on Alito, great. We can beat him. But even if we don't win, the GOP has some really tough sledding ahead.

The plan is simple: Keep up the pressure. We cannot always rely on our Congressmen to do the right thing. However, if we keep fighting and spreading our ideals, we just might be able to get a few of our guys in Washington in November.

Ohio Macht Frei

2005-12-23T14:16:00.000-08:00

Guten tag, Bürger. Wo gehen Sie? Tun einen Verbrechen? Erscheinen mich Ihren Ausweiskarte. Schneller! Sie konnten ein Verbrecher sein! Sie müssen festgehalten sein!

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer in Ohio, indeed.

Some advice from 42

2005-12-22T20:39:00.000-08:00

Perhaps it's some odd fluke of the universe that former President Clinton's Presidental number is the Answer to the Universe. But never the less, what he said in his recent joint interview with 41 in Time's People of the Year issue are worth repeating:

Americans like politics; they like debate. They like us to air our differences, because they know we have got to have an honest debate to come to a good answer. But then they also think that debate ought to have limits to it. And I think they believe that for more than 20 years, we've gotten into thinking that people we have disagreements with are people we have to despise or demonize. They think that in turn it has had a boomerang effect on our country. It's kept us from solving a lot of problems and doing a lot of things we could have done otherwise. So I think people see George (Bush) and me, and they say "This is the way our country ought to work."

The article is fantastic. Go and read it/ buy it/ steal it from a friend and read it. Here's what I think:

I don't like moderates. I don't agree with the idea that moving to some arbitrary 'center' is the best idea, politcally. However, what I do like about centrists like Clinton is their attitude about politeness and courtesy in politics. I have nothing but contempt for conservativism. As for conservatives, I realise and understand that they are people, too. They care for their families and have their jobs. For the life of me, I can't villify them (except for the worst of them; but come on.). So what I like about the blogsphere is its ability to remove the personal aspects of politics and leave the raw, immaterial, pure politik exposed.

It's part of the reason that I don't blog under my real name (as if many of you didn't know it already): I don't want my person to be my ideas. I talk politics, yeah. But I also rock climb, drink (liberally), hang with my friends, date women, and so many things that do not matter, politically.

We could all take a lesson from the companionship of 41 and 42. What I take from their friendship is that, as fun as it is, politics is not everything. There is something so very awesome about a good, calm debate with someone that just can't be done when you see your opponent as satan himself. We are all human, after all.

Guess who's getting famous?

2005-12-22T16:59:00.000-08:00

Me, baby. From Red State Rebels (Which isn't too shabby itself):

Via the excellent Northwest Progressive Institute's portal, I've just found Thoughts from Idaho, apparently written by a frat man from the U of I in Moscow. Get past the occasionally salty language [V: I love that part] there to read why King George II ought to keep his throne - even after the Democrats take back Congress next year - and how, if the next presidential election were held today, Democrats would rout Republicans in the EC 424-114, with only 13 states going GOP. (Yeah, Idaho's one of 'em - but Montana isn't.)

*Starts dancing* So when do I get my check?

What's that? I do this because I like to, not for the money? What about the GoogleAds at the top? Not getting any money from those, right...
Well shit, at least I'm spreading the good word. (I'd love some new clothes from Express, though)

Interest Check: Drinking Liberally

2005-12-21T18:14:00.000-08:00

Since I'm pretty sure most the people reading this blog are in the Palouse region, is there much of a want to start a Drinking Liberally club? I'd love to, but I don't want to drink away my sorrows alone... (I know one person posted about it...)

On George II's throne, and why he should keep it

2005-12-21T17:20:00.000-08:00

I think that King George the Second should keep his office. There, I said it. And yes, I know it's my problem that those pigs were flying around today. Let me tell you why:

First of all, I completely disagree with the throne he's been building for himself. I mean come on, he is using "just a piece of paper" to justify his actions.
If you've been living in a box for the last week, here's what you need to know: The president has authorized spying on American citizens in the United States without court approval. He can get that approval, retroactively up to 72 hours after the fact even. And why didn't they get that retroactive approval? They were too lazy.

This is a horrible abuse of power that would make Stalin coo in approval. Bush seems to have said "fuck it" one night-- what with low approval numbers and a self- destructing party-- and is now living as he was raised to: A spoiled brat who get's his way. He's a cowboy sheriff in his head: He's going to do what he wants to keep the peace, "an' no one ain't gonna tell him otherwise."

Now, why do I think this is a good thing? Because think of this: There is a growing call for the President's impeachment. There's a hell of a lot more here than a hummer in the office, and indeed it might be the best way to go, given his actions. However, I think some reactionaries are not looking far enough ahead.

Think wwaaayyy back to government class in high school. Remember the chain of command? Guess who moves into the oval office if George II leaves: That's right, Vice President Cheney. As bad as W is, Cheney is almost unarguably the brains of that Administration. He's also much more sinister and political than W. I don't want him as the President. (Think Cheney can be kicked out too? That moves in the Senate Pro- Tempor, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. The infamous Senator behind the Bridge to Nowhere and the ANWR drilling schticks. This guy is absolutely horrible-- as opposed just plain horrible that is typical of the Republican Congress)

I've been rambling, so here's my point: King George (and the rest of the Republicans, for that matter) is making it very easy for the Democrats to take Congress. The Republicans, drunk with power, have been making payments to their rotten constituents (Think the Shiavo debacle, the CAFTA supposed free trade agreement, and the Bankruptcy "Reform" bill). These, and many, many others have alienated the moderates and fired up the Democratic base. Barring Jesus coming around and saying he's a republican (not likely), or the democrats dropping the ball, Congress is going to be in the right hands for the first time in 6 congressional sessions (12 years).

Past 2006, we need to keep King George II around as well. By removing him, we remove the cancerous growth that he represents; bringing the Republicans out of their culture of corruption (at least in the eyes of the average voter). Besides, with a Democratic Congress, King George II can't do much of anything, spending his last years in the lovely category of lame- duckness. We still want him around for 2008 and the eventual takeover of the Executive branch. It will be harder for the Democratic Party with a relatively clean republican party to fight against.

st.

Oh Ann, you're so silly...

2005-11-25T13:13:00.000-08:00

From the Rude Pundit:

But once Ann Coulter gets somethin' in her craw, she ain't done with it until she's masticated that fucker with all ten sets of her viperous teeth: "The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle." [emphasis mine]

Oh right, because the Republicans aren't doing that by keeping them there. Doesn't it do more for the sons and daughters of America to bring them home than to leave them in a futile war of attrition?

If the Presidential Election were held today...

2005-11-16T14:23:00.000-08:00

We would sweep this one like a newlywed groom:

Using these numbers from MyDD and the Electoral Vote calculator from OpinionJournal.com, it's obvious that we'd take it easily. It breaks my heart to see the Gem state as the reddest of the red at the top of Chris' list, tied with Utah for positive opinions of Bush. But oh well, that'll change in three years --as long as satan comes by, asking to borrow my ski jacket...
(As an aside, I gave any state that had a -10 difference or higher in Presidental approval numbers to the democrats.)

I know alot is going to change over the next three years, and that '08 isn't going to be an election for Bush, but "some people say, I'm a dreamer..." The election in 2008 (and in 'o6 even more so) is going to be a referendum on Republican control for the previous 8 years (14 if you count congress).

I'm proud to be a Catholic

2005-11-10T18:28:00.000-08:00

At least there are some sane voices in Christianity these days, even if I am a week late on reading it. But hey, it's research paper season: I don't do much besides read and write these days (and nights.).

Morning Snark

2005-11-08T09:56:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Bill in Portland Maine for some great stuff from a great man:

CHEERS to elections worth celebrating. 73 years ago today, on November 8, 1932, New York Governor Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. A few verbal goodies from FDR...

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward."
-

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government."

-

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

Fraternal elections and politics

2005-11-07T23:09:00.000-08:00

My fraternity had its semester elections tonight. It was interesting in that in one sense, it reflected politics today; and another that it showed an idealized view of what can be. Even in such a small group as mine of 30 odd men, there is still the politicking and backroom dealing to get what one group wants done.

I may hate to admit it, but there are divisions in my fraternity. Though typically a plague of the larger houses of 50+ men, cliques are present even here. Ominously, my particular fraternity's division is singular. That is, there are two, roughly equal groups with little presence of a 'moderate' group. Much like American voters, we agree on most issues that come before the house. The divisions come out on only a few key issues, yet they come out with thinly- veiled hate for the other's position. The issues themselves are irrelevant to this post, but what is more relevant what it means to be associated with the different groups.

We were eventually reduced to two candidates for the presidency-- Which was an interesting process, given that we started out with five candidates, two for my side and three for their's. They reduced their candidates through an eerily similar process to national politics to achieve the maximum possible chance of win. As for my side, I bowed out to focus more on school and my role as the Philanthropy Chairman. Anyway, once their respective speeches were done and both had left the room, we soon learned some spooky similarities to national politics were within our election.

For one, neither candidate was the best for the job in the house. Because of various personal problems, it was readily apparent that there were better candidates in the house. However, they were what the system had given us, and we ended up defending every point we could about our candidate of choice. For example: One candidate was accused of being too emotional in times of stress. An objective enough claim. But the amount of vitriol put forth by his 'party' in defense/ in offense of the other candidate was enough to make the Swift Boat boys blush in admiration. They attacked the opposition candidate for things that he personally was not part of, but was victim to anyway because of who supported him.

Secondly, it became painfully obvious that after a bit of civil discussion, the sides were set in their choice for candidate. The only reason for more discussion was to get the three or four men still sitting on the fence. The other twenty three were locked in stone with their decision. It was the same back- and- forth argument for twenty minutes. "My argument." "My argument!" "My same argument!" "My Same Argument!!" And so on and so on...

But not all was bleak. In a marked break from national politics, there was a solution. No one in the fraternity wanted a divided Executive Board. Both sides agreed (unspokenly) that whoever would win the Presidency, the other side's candidate would become the Vice President. And so it was. Yours truely's candidate was made the VP, with hopes for the other side's. In reflection, I thought of the rumors of the 'Dream Ticket' of Kerry- McCain from back in 'o4. The thought that, "if only we could have a bipartisan ticket, everything would be alright." was very inviting then, as it was tonight. But unfortunately, my Fraternity cannot reflect back onto the political stage, even if it is retroactively. Though Kerry and McCain never made it, the choice made tonight here gives this already cynical observer a ray of hope for the future; even if it is for something as small as 30 guys in a house speaking Greek.

So now, as I finish my second glass of Port (If has ever been ANYTHING to come out if the Iberian Peninsula as divine as Port, I don't want to know), I reflect on the divided nation we inhibit. Even in the supposedly red state of Idaho, there are those who want consensus instead of division; unity instead of infighting. Perhaps someday, we can have the bipartisan tickets of yore. But then I wonder if that would solve anything. Would a divided White House be a bastion of cooperation, or just another arena of infighting within American Politics? I don't know the answer, honestly. But I do know that my Port is gone, and I should go to bed. Professor Crowley's 'Law & Society' class is tomorrow, and if it's anything like the last few classes, he'll have much to say about Scalito.

Welcome to my Blog

2005-11-07T13:39:00.000-08:00

Just started. If you're reading this, I don't know why you haven't left yet.