« January 2004 | Main | March 2004 »
February 29, 2004
Seeking freedom from the right, my peace of mind
(With Apologies to Screw 32)
Try and imagine this scenario: In the year 1775, France and Spain (both pissed at England) declare an embargo against English Goods. Even translating a pamphlet from English into Spanish or French would be a crime. A year latter, the Declaration is published, but no one in France or Spain can read it. Popular passions in those countries are not aroused, and when America puts out the call for help, none comes. The Revolution ends in 1780. England wins, Liberty looses...
this NY times article is a bit hyperbolic. Additionally, it focuses only on scientists, who can almost always be counted on to invoke the "international community of science", a scary thing when we are talking about a theocracy trying to create nukes...
Nevertheless, the issue is real, and the Bush administration is really screwing this one up. The nation of Iran is currently undergoing a Democratic Revolution. This Revolution seems to be not only 100% home grown, but it is also in our best interest to make sure one happens. By placing a communications gag order over Iran, Americans will be less able to help (in whatever form that aid may be requested), and they may well loose...
If I may be a bit hyperbolic for a moment: to recap, a Republican Administration gives sells arms to Iran, thus helping a brutal theocracy maintain control over its citizenry. Another one directly inhibits the ability of the Iranians to tell America how bad it is in Iran. Its almost as if the Republican party hates Liberty, or something...
Posted by Andrew at 03:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 26, 2004
The Caliphate
In the comments, John makes a-- erm-- comment. The answer is:
Posted by Andrew at 09:58 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 24, 2004
IKEA FAQ
The Morning News - The Non-Expert: IKEA
Oddly, I find that Ikea is like lego, but for adults...
Posted by Andrew at 08:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Something I don't get
So, President Bush made some evil comments in the State of the Union, comments that so enraged the Mayor of San Francisco that he felt the need to take action...
Why, then, is it that the mayor is being accused of causing a backlash, but the president is not? When you get right down to it, the President is at least equally culpable...
Posted by Andrew at 08:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Top ten reasons to not re-elect George Bush as President
10) He didn't win back in 2000. This is actually a minor reason; had Bush been the best president ever, we wouldn't really care how he took office. But he hasn't been, and the fact remains that he got in under a fluke, a one time event, and an interesting arrangement of circumstance. He had his chance.
Oh, and the proof that he didn't win? Take a look here. Scroll past the headline to:
Use of Palm Beach County standardOut of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore.
Inclusion of overvotes
In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.
Gore won, Bush lost, but Bush got to be president anyway. Rewarding that with a second term is not ok...
9) If Bush gets another Term, his wife'll want one too.
We all know what power-hungry bitches first Ladies are.
8) Bush lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Sure, sure, "We were all wrong". But Bush was the one who decided to go to war. And there were plenty of good reasons to go to war. Our president decided to ignore them and instead focused on the one claim that was least important to American national security. No matter what else he may have accomplished in Iraq, he lied to get us there...
7) No one else has been fired for 9-11.
The Preamble to the constitution lays out the duties of our government:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
9-11 was a failure to "provide for the common defense". We have several entire agencies of the government built around ensuring that these sorts of things don't happen...
So, when the government fails in such a huge way that 3000 Americans are dead and 2 entire zip codes become nothing more than rubble, someone, somewhere (probably lots of someones) should be held accountable. So far no one has. That being the case, the guy at the top should go. See ya' George.
6) The Tax cuts. + the Bush spending increase.
There are so many reasons these are bad that I can't enumerate them all. Let me try.
First, a look at Angry Bear's excellent graph will show us that the Deficit has exploded. But we knew that. Many people think that this is because of 9-11 or something. Well, lets take a look at another graph. This one shows that were Clinton's budget prescriptions followed, we'd be a hell of a lot better off...
I'm told that this doesn't matter, that Deficits aren't that important. Well, they are. See, there is a finite amount of money available to be borrowed. The government gets first dibs, (because they can pay the most) Companies get second dibs, and you and I get last dibs. The more money the government borrows, the less there is for me to borrow for school and for my dad's company to borrow for capital investment. And Bush caused this. Therefore, he must go...
5) Bush thinks that companies can be trusted to regulate themselves for the public good.
It is a basic fact of economics that not all costs are born directly by the person who generates them. These are called "externalities". Pollution is the classic externality. When I can't breath because someone is pumping crap into the air, it creates a situation where the cost of fixing that falls on me-- even though I didn't cause the problem...
President Bush seems to think that a company will clean up after itself if he asks nicely. The cornerstone of a Capitalistic System is the belief that a company will work only in ways that they believe will maximize their competitive advantage. How, exactly does any plan Bush proposes have any effect at all if he cuts funding for the enforcement mechanism? Owing to his inability to understand basic Market realities, Bush must Go.
4) Bush launched two (2) wars against nations he believed were terrorist-sponsoring without even defining how we would know if we won.
Note the date on this Memo. "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror." -Donald Rumsfeld. And yet they went to war anyway, without knowing if it would do more harm or good. George Bush has shown plainly that he is incapable of adult action against terror, therefore he must go...
3) Bush is in favor of a constitutional amendment banning marriage for certain people.
President Bush cannot find it in his heart to feel joy for two people coming together and announcing before the world that they love each other. Anyone with that little empathy deserves my scorn, not my vote.
2) President Bush is not a World Leader.
Owing to our great and uncontested strength, the position of American President Carries with it the title "leader of the (free) world". President Bush doesn't act this way, preferring instead to pretend that America can operate in a vacuum. President Bush was willing to risk a trade war with Europe and Japan to prevent my Father (a steel construction company owner) access to cheaper steel. Bush did this in order to get some votes from places that make Steel domestically. Look, that industry should be mature enough at this point that it can stand on its own merits...
Or, alternately, How about Bush being willing to alienate a Key ally in the War on Terror (Pakistan) by refusing to lower Textile Tariffs. How does that make sense? It doesn't, if he were leader of the world. But as President of the US, it makes perfect sense. I guess the president of some other country will have to take a leadership position...
Which isn't good enough for me. But if it's good enough for Bush, I don't want him leading me...
1) Bush reserves to the office of the president the ability to define who a terrorist is.
Bush wants US citizens to be treated like non-citizens, and wants to try them in millitary* courts. Or, to put it differently:
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
And
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
And
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
Those quotes were from the Declaration of Independence, by the way. Oh Jefferson, you wacky radical!
But when you combine that with his education secretary calling teachersTerrorists, you end with the picture that keeps me up at nights. President Bush simply wants way too much power in his own hands. As a result of this, he is unfit for the presidency...
1) Bush reserves to the office of the president the ability to define who a terrorist is.
Bush wants US citizens to be treated like non-citizens, and wants to try them in civil courts. Or, to put it differently:
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
And
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
And
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
Those quotes were from the Declaration of Independence, by the way. Oh Jefferson, you wacky radical!
But when you combine that with his education secretary calling teachersTerrorists, you end with the picture that keeps me up at nights. President Bush simply wants way too much power in his own hands. As a result of this, he is unfit for the presidency...
* this part originaly read "civil' courts. But that is an error. Or, rather, that is the way it _should_ be, but Bush is acting badly. Anyway, the fault of typing is mine...
Posted by Andrew at 06:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 21, 2004
Things fall apart, the Center cannot hold
And mere anarchy is loosed upon the land, albeit in a very organized way...
We've all seen it, those of us familiar with technology. We get the brand new, latest gizmo and it becomes obsolete. The technology didn't change. It didn't do anything bad in itself, the piece of equipment works as well as it always did. But my first computer is now an historical curiosity in the Smithsonian. What happened? Well, people found new and better ways of exploiting the technology, ways which the architecture of my old computer couldn't keep up...
To make another analogy to the Roman Republic, (though honestly, I only use them because I know them best...) during the late republic, the constitution was changed a whole lot of times. To give one example; during one of the interminable Germanic wars, It was recognized that Giaus Marius was the ablest military commander in the Republic. Unfortunately, only consuls were allowed to command military troops. To make matters more interesting, a General would be stripped of his (military) rank the instant he crossed into Rome (mainly to prevent people like Caesar from doing what Caesar actually did). Long story short: Marius was allowed to stand for Consul In Abstentia...
Flash forward about 40-50 years. Standing In Abstentia was de rigueur. And rather than doing it for the benefit of the Republic, it was being done to postpone prosecution for a few years. What had been a tool had now become a weapon, the technology of government had become obsolete...
Flash-forward to Today. Or, rather, several years ago. The problem was the corporate management and corporate shareholders' interest were not aligned. The was a problem-- someone with power over you who can profit off screwing you will eventually do so. The solution? Corporate managers were granted "options", that is, the ability to by a certain amount of stock at a specified price. If, during their tenure, the price of the stock went up, mangers made money. The system seemed to work well for years...
The problem came when Managers realized a fundamental truth: day to day stock prices don't reflect reality. While it is true that in the long run, stock prices are consistent with, and reflect with fair accuracy, reality; it is possible to hide that reality for years. And we ended up with the corporate governance scandal. The technology of corporate governance had become obsolete...
How about one more example? Marriage laws, as they currently exist, were designed for a vastly different social system than we have today. Human beings were (and are) pretty much always going to be having sex, and sex (when the laws were designed) pretty much always lead to children. Thus providing a marriage framework also created a good framework for providing for children's wellbeing. Too, marriage was the best way to ensure a proper preservation of Capital (which mainly seems to have worked for the parent's benefit.) Suffice it to say today this situation no longer applies. Effective methods of birth control and better methods of asset preservation have combined to annihilate the traditional necessity for marriage. Indeed, today, the only real reason for marriage is love. And thus, the technology of society must change...
Posted by Andrew at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 19, 2004
we got 'im! (humor. Not the real thing. Its the Onion for gods' sake)
The Onion | Osama Bin Laden Found Inside Each Of Us
Posted by Andrew at 09:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 17, 2004
Um, excuse me, but wasn't the death of the Anointed one a good thing?
Something that I don't understand, something that I have long been curious about:
If Jesus "died for our sins" as the Christians would have it. And if Jesus' death is the necessary pre-condition for cleansing some perceived slight against a deity, again, as the Christians would have it, then wouldn't the Question of "who killed Jesus" be rather moot?
Did the "Jews" kill Jesus? Well, no. Some did, but not the corporate entity known as "the Jews". Might as well blame America for the destruction of the Caliphate 80 some odd years ago. And since the death of Jesus is seen as such a positive event (the Catholics call the anniversary of his death "Good Friday") why on earth should the supposed instrument by which that death happened be worthy of scorn, rather than praise...
Indeed, if one really wishes to blame some corporate group for the death of Jesus (which, as I have just established, should be considered a good thing), then blame should really be laid at the feet of the Pharisees. Of course, they are a long gone sect of Judaism anyway, so perhaps we could just forget the whole thing...
Posted by Andrew at 11:25 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 16, 2004
Well, hot damn!
Herald.com: Miami & Ft. Lauderdale News, Weather, Dolphins & More
Proud to be a 3rd generation SF boy...
Posted by Andrew at 11:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 14, 2004
Scalzi wrote what?
Inspired by talk of his New Book, I checked out what Mr. Scalzi Also writes...
PS. Yes, I know its not him...
Posted by Andrew at 08:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 13, 2004
While Dean is quite right
While Dean is quite right when he comments about money not necessarily buying elections, I cannot help but think of Dick Morris' injunction that a politician (or hopeful) "needs enough money to get his or her message across" (The New Prince Pg. 29). After he makes this statement he comes to the conclusion that to win a midsized state (he is speaking of Senate races) it takes US$2.5 million. He goes on to explain that the right candidate with this US$2.5 million will have a shot, and the wrong one won't In the end, though, you need that US$2.5 million...
Mr. Morris dedicates all of chapter 19 to fundraising ("How to raise money and keep your virtue"), but it should be pointed out that when a company donates money to a political cause or campaign, the by and large expect a return on investment. Indeed, by law a company is required to try and make money...
Let us not kid ourselves here. While more money does not equal more votes, without enough money there will be no ability to get enough votes. And for as long as people want things from politicians, they will be free with those pursestrings...
Posted by Andrew at 12:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 12, 2004
Ah, but he leads the important one...
For the first time, fewer than half of Americans, 47 percent, now say the war with Iraq was worth fighting. That compared with over 70 percent during the war. Fifty-seven percent disapprove of Bush's performance in terms of job creation.The poll also finds that Bush trailed John Kerry, Democratic front-runner in the presidential race, by 43 percent to 51 percent,in a hypothetical match-up. Kerry leads Bush in trust to handle fourof six tested issues - health costs, jobs, the economy, and education - leaving Bush the lead on Iraq and the war on terrorism.
As much as I think that the first 4 are good things to beat Bush on; I also think that the American public wants to hear that kerry won't change the course on the War on Terror (except for the better, of course!). Until they know Kerry will fight this war, they won't vote for him. No matter what...
Posted by Andrew at 09:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 09, 2004
Is Bush Reelectable? (PT 2)
My GF says that my last post on this topic was a bit incoherent. I don't doubt that at all. Mid-terms are upon me, so between Latin and early church history, I haven't had much time for writing these days. Anyway...
Abraham Maslow once came up with a psychological theory involving a hierarchy of needs. Basically there are 5 levels of questions (level one: "Do I have air/food/water", Level two: "I am safe" Level three: does anyone love me?" etc Better explained over here) Voters too, have levels of needs...
The thing is, the questions keep shifting, and if a candidate gets them out of order or answers the wrong way to the most basic question, he's not gonna be elected. The basic question of the 1992 election, for instance was: Should America be a Hegemonic nation. Bush and Clinton answered Yes, Perot answered No. Perot scored roughly 19% of the vote...
(On a frightening note, the central question of the last French Presidential election seems to have been "do you want to be a fascist, with Le Pen's "yes" coming in at 20%, or roughly 1 out of every 5 voters.)
In 1992, the second-level question was "do you like where the economy is?" Clinton won that one, and the election...
By the time of the 1996 election, the questions were all the same (with Perot's Anti-Hegemony vote capturing a mere 9% of the electorate), with "do you like Clinton" being inserted between the first and second levels. Clinton won handily...
In the year 2000, Ralph Nadar really, Really wanted the question to be "should America be a Hegemonic nation", but only 3% of the population even cared about this, with only about 1.5% actually voting on his platform. Everyone else voted for "do you like Clinton?" as a primary...
The secondary question seemed to have an attitude that history was, indeed, over, and that we Americans had won. Therefore, the question would be "how much do you wanna party?" Bush said "quite a bit", and Gore said "yes, certainly". "yes, certainly" won, though not by enough to count. It should be noted here mean old Ralph Nadar choose wrongly on this question too...
The question for this election is "Do you feel safe?" Right now, Republicans have developed their whole campaign around answering this question. ("no, but just 4 more years of Bush and I will"). Democrats have been saying "Social Security". If the Democrats don't fix this problem, they will not have a chance...
Let's not make a mistake on this score: Question 1 is "do you feel safe?", not "do you like Bush?" Democrats don't seem to understand this at all...
Iraq, BTW, doesn't seem enter into it as an issue on its own. It only seems to matter if taken in a total-security context.
Let's make no bones about this: Bush has had 4 years to make us safer. If he has failed to do so, and Americans are serious about security, then there should not be another 4 years. But first the Democratic Party has to run someone who takes this issue as seriously as America does.
Posted by Andrew at 09:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 04, 2004
Is Bush Reelectable?
It looks more and more like Kerry will be the Democratic nominee for President. I'm not one of those guys who thinks that "anyone but Bush" represents the height of political sophisticationI think Al Sharpton would do a worse job, for instance. Still and all, Bush has been bad for this country...
References to America as a new incarnation of the Rome are overblown, overdone, and mostly wrong. Still, they canon occasionbe useful. So I'll make one now:
Before the Roman Republic slid into Empire (or at least before the first Emperor. I think the two are not the same. Others disagree) there was a time when Citizens of the City of Rome were given the vote and other rights of citizenship, but no others were. This annoyed the Italians to no end. They (Italy) had for all intents and purposes become a part of the Roman State. They were under Roman discipline but not allowed the protections of Roman Law.
The Romans (naturally) constantly voted for Candidates who would consider only Roman interestseven at the expense of Italian ones. This included small things (putting Italian troops into shock troop duty) and larger ones (selling Italian lands to Romans after selling the owners into slaverysomething that Roman law forbid Romans to do to each other). Eventually the Italians Revolted.
The war was a military victory for the Romans but that didn't seem to matter. The Romans came to understand the war as a Civil affair, and thus see the Italians as part of the same nation. The Italians were granted citizenship...
While much of this analogy doesn't work in direct terms (I don't expect the Europeans to launch a war upon us while clamoring for American Citizenship), there is a point of Comparison that does make sense:
The American president is seen as the leader of the world (it used to be just the free world). We keep electing presidents as American leaders, beholden to American interests only. Is this good?
We need to look at the records of both candidates and see how much they care about world interests. Not just the War on Terror. This must be seen as only a component of the whole. Has Bush demonstrated a commitment to our Allies? Is our opinion more or less important to the rest of the world than it was before he took office? When we look at Kerry, we must ask what his Record is. How would he handle matters of foreign trade? What is his interest in/experience with matters that don't solely concern America?
It's a big world out there. American Hegemony can only really last for as long as the rest of the world doesn't act to stop it. Whoever is president come 2005 needs to understand that basic truth. Our job is to ensure that the president does...
Posted by Andrew at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack