Homepage
Music (down)
Design
| Monday, May 26, 2008 |
| For a voting test |
I've had it. Right up to here, I've had it with the willfully politically ignorant. I understand people are busy. I don't expect people to understand the nuances of the U.S. medical care system. I don't expect dissertations on the pros and cons of economic models. I expect basic competence.
Am I mad? You bet. Smear campaigns have a long history, but when people can rationalize that Barack Obama is a Muslim and has a crazy Christian pastor -- those people need to stay at home on election day. Of course, there are dumbasses in both political parties.
In an ideal world, I would expect every single American to generally understand a lot of basic, basic ideas that have real-world effects - even if they don't know the term. For example, pick [A] or [B]: The price of a gallon of gas went up last summer, because a lot of people [A: bought more gas to go on road trips] [B: stayed at home and didn't drive as much as the rest of the year].
A very, very basic knowledge of the laws of supply and demand - and for that matter, logic - would tell you the correct answer.
Every single American should understand:
- The very barest outline of American history (i.e., 1776, 1812, the Civil War, 1917, 1941, Vietnam).
- How tax deductions work with a normal 1040.
Is this elitism? Am I looking down my nose at the "working-class" people? You bet. But I'm working class, too.
There's a strain of anti-intellectualism in the U.S., and I suppose it's rooted in our history of being the independent-minded that can't be told what to do. But when pride in being able to do what you like - pride in freedom - becomes an excuse to wear stupidity like a badge of honor, it's just an excuse.Labels: idiots, politics, voting |
posted by Steve @ 12:46 PM  |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, May 20, 2008 |
| Tim Russet and I think alike |
Tim Russert was just on MSNBC's coverage of the KY/OR primaries. In it, he said that he always wondered if it were possible for a return the the debate style of Golwater/Johnson: to fly around the country (in the same jet, no less), having unmoderated debates around the country in small town halls.
He thinks it's possible with McCain-Obama, and I'm as giddy at the idea of an elevated debate as the pundits are. I still think that ultimately most pundits (and all good ones) really relish the idea of a substantive debate because that's what gets them interested in the first place.
I can hope, can't I?Labels: politics, TV |
| posted by Steve @ 6:49 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Blood still cries from the ground |
Victor Jara's murderer has been convicted, though not with his compatriots.
And in the world, a heart of darkness, a fire zone
Where poets speak their heart, then bleed for it
Jara sang, his song a weapon in the hands of love
You know his blood still cries from the ground
It runs like a river, runs to the sea
It runs like a river to the sea
- U2, One Tree Hill
Labels: news, poetry |
| posted by Steve @ 5:54 PM |
|
|
|
|
| NRO: Even Dumber than Advertised |
I wonder why National Review listed this headline - "Black Statement Conflicts With Record" - with stories about the Obama campaign. It's about McCain's campaign. And it's about Charlie Black. Sometimes you really can't parody.
h/t: Andrew Sullivan |
| posted by Steve @ 11:53 AM |
|
|
|
| Monday, May 19, 2008 |
| Insert Punchline Here |
It's just too easy: Miller and Busch beers are making camouflage cans aimed at hunters.
Anybody see something wrong with getting more beer into the hands of the people with guns? Rachel also notes that they might not be able to find their beer after the first 6-pack...Labels: alcohol, guns, idiots, joke |
| posted by Steve @ 9:22 PM |
|
|
|
| Sunday, May 18, 2008 |
| Bloggerheads |
There's a fascinating discussion about the role of religion and Christianity in U.S. politics on Bloggingheads.
There's a lot of interesting ideas put out there, but the one I liked best is that, apparently, you can prove almost anything by quoting most Founding Fathers, because they disagreed on almost everything. The idea, then, isn't to take their words as sacrosanct (which would be foolish anyway, 230+ years removed), but to look at how they came to their conclusions.
The source of their idea of the separation of Church & State came from the fact that before the U.S., the Church was sponsored by the State. Ministers and churches and the like were funded by taxes. The Founders' enthusiasm for the free market worked into this as well: the best preachers, the most effective religious institutions, and the best communities (which at least at the time coalesced around the Church) would flourish. A state-sponsored church isn't as robust because it's not as accountable.
Of course, the irony to this is that despite the fact that it's the "Religious Right" that pushes for closer ties between Church and State, this argument by the Founders against the regulation and support of religion by the government functions on the classic Republican small-government, low-interference line. As I said, there was disagreement about where to draw the line (and obviously, there still is), but it's an interesting notion that unfortunately is largely forgotten.
Except by you. Now you know it. Good job.Labels: politics, religion |
| posted by Steve @ 8:24 PM |
|
|
|
|
| One last thought on Bush's comment... |
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Why the hell would I want to take diplomatic advice from George W. Bush??Labels: Bush, idiots |
| posted by Steve @ 12:28 PM |
|
|
|
| Saturday, May 17, 2008 |
| Deriving hope |
Imitation is the highest form of ________.
There's a reason that Obama's competitors keep trying to steal his messages: they know it resonates with everyone it touches.
Some people are pretty determined to make sure it doesn't touch them, of course - ranging from the able-minded cynics to the self-delusional people who insist he's A MUSLIM (the horror).
We want to believe that the idea that America can fix America is possible. The idea is as formidable as America at its best because it IS America at its best.Labels: Obama, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 11:39 AM |
|
|
|
| Friday, May 16, 2008 |
| This is my body; take this all of you - except that guy. |
I'm a Catholic. I have to find Church in myself, because I have trouble finding a church that actually espouses the kind of Gospel that Jesus taught. Instead, I find judgment and, frankly, low-level hatred. I hear so much of it in the news: whom to hate. In particular, I hear a lot about how gays and lesbians are an abomination before God, and about how the Sacrament of Marriage is so, so sacred.
There are Seven Sacraments: Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick. Baptism is a sort of initiation rite, as is Confirmation. Marriage is an understanding of the spiritual joining of a man and woman (as opposed to marriage, the legal term). Holy Orders is the process of becoming a priest, and Anointing of the Sick is a ritual of healing appropriate not only for physical but also for mental and spiritual sickness.
I'd say that Reconciliation and the Eucharist are the most important in normal Catholic's lives. The Eucharist is (basically) Communion (which is all about Jesus' resurrection), and Reconciliation is the forgiveness of sins. Without those two, you don't really have Christianity.
One of the Sacraments is under attack and it isn't Marriage. It's the Eucharist.
As an Obama supporter, long-time pro-life advocate and all-around Mega-Catholic Doug Kmiec had this happen to him in church:
I have been declared “self-excommunicated,” and recently at a Mass before a dinner speech to Catholic business leaders, a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion. You gotta understand - this heretic of a chaplain judged a man unfit for one of the Sacraments, which are a Catholic's lifeline to God.
This country wasn't founded on religion. Quite the opposite. The Founding Fathers understood the poison that religion can bring into people's lives when it's politicized. They took great lengths to ensure it didn't become part of government, and explicitly said so. Here, for example, is the text of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which was signed unanimously by the Senate:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This makes the ravings of abominations like Rod Parsley even more offensive to their religion, and the conscience, as well as to the United States.
One of these days, I hope, Christians are going to figure out that leading by example, and actually helping people, is far more useful and in-line with God's teachings than picket lines and excoriating people with whom they don't agree. Imagine if the Church had spent the time and trouble that they had spent condemning abortion, and used it instead to actually help the young women considering abortion.
One can hope.Labels: Catholics, God, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 2:48 PM |
|
|
|
|
| On Hamas and negotiations |
"We need the United States to lead rough-minded diplomacy, this includes direct engagement with Iran, similar to the meeting we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War"
- Barack Obama, 15 February, 2008 Aaand our boy George's rejoinder:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
- George W. Bush, 15 May, 2008 Ah, the difference between "appeasement and "engagement." Obama never said, "appeasement," and you can bet your life that Reagan "engaged" Russia. There were four Gorbachev/Reagan face-to-face summits around the world. Those meetings directly resulted in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Reagan is deified for this role in closing the Cold War peacefully, but his methods are, it seems, forgotten.
But to clarify: Hitler was appeased when the British and French gave him half of Czechoslovakia and hoped he'd stop. Russia and the U.S. entered talks to end the Cold War and agreed to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal because both recognized that MAD wasn't a good situation for either nation.
I've been looking at the rhetoric between Obama and McCain, and at this point, I don't think either one will do anything differently from each other (regarding this question of diplomacy, anyway). In a way, all I see is McCain pandering a bit to the Republicans, and Obama pandering a bit to the Democrats. Both have said they’d only talk to Iran when they recognized Israel's legitimacy, but that we’ll have to eventually talk to Hama – they might support terrorists, but they won a democratic election in the region. They are, by our own measure, the rightful leaders of that area.
We also do have really good reasons to open relationships with both of those nations. Iran is at least as influential to Iraq as we are, whether we stay or go, whether we like it or not. Moreover, they're the ones getting open ceremonial greetings in the daytime. Cheney had to come unannounced, at night, with body guards. They are also in desperate need of humanitarian aid, need help getting their own country into shape, and Iran's population isn't as radical as its leader. We both have needs that we can help each other out with. The situation is not impossible, but can be made impossible when we dismiss the possibility of finding a mutually-beneficial arrangement. Same goes for Hamas, but even more so: Hamas supports terrorism abroad, and yet runs hospitals, feeds the poor, and takes care of its people. That's how they got elected. Israel also needs to have a good sit-down. They're our staunch ally, and are definitely a stabilizing force within the region, but they can make us pretty uncomfortable when they do land-grabs, or lob missiles into family homes, and Hamas says, "See? This is why they're evil."
None of that can be solved by ignoring the problem, or threatening to bomb everybody in the region that angers us at that particular moment (which was Iran, then Iraq, then Iran again, then it was Hamas, etc.).
Now, this is all just a general outline of course – the complexities that are the Middle East have made it nearly impossible to stabilize since… forever. I don’t know
From what I know about both candidates, their top priority for Iran is to keep them from developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. I know Obama played a part in this a few years ago while working with Republicans on the anti-nuclear weapons proliferation bill. Though I don't think McCain was part of that, I think it's pretty obvious he feels the same way about it.
For Hamas, if I remember right, I've heard both say they want Hamas to recognize Israel's legitimacy (which would be an obvious first step). Obama has, more candidly, noted that Israel is causing problems as well when Israel takes the same posture towards Hamas as Hamas takes towards Israel. He's been blasted for this, but it seems pretty fair to me. Even the Israeli Jewish press (Israelis are less convinced that Israel has flawless plans than the U.S. Jewish press, which seems convinced that any criticism of Israel is out-of-bounds) has generally agreed that Obama is about as "Pro-Israel" as any U.S. politician.
Anyway, like I said, this all strikes me as political buddying-up with each candidates' political base, but I see no daylight between their stances. Still, I don't think it helps McCain at all to defend Bush, the Least Popular U.S. President of All Time, Ever (really).
Here's a really good write up I found about the difference between appeasement and diplomacy here, by someone who was/is for the war, just to show I'm not just being a Loony Lefty, here.
Update: Boy, I'm really not alone. Obama actually went on the attack to denounce the remark (which is rare, though I can't decide if that's good or bad). Nancy Pelosi called it "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel." Keith Olbermann spent more than a few segments about it. Chris Matthews laid the best damn TV-interview smackdown I've seen since Jon Stewart's Crossfire hot-wiring.Labels: Bush, idiots, Obama, politics, TV |
| posted by Steve @ 11:31 AM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, May 13, 2008 |
| West Virginia: FAIL. (Or: quote of the day) |
From Gawker, on a Clinton supporter's assertion (from the Financial Times article)that "Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist":
Mr. Simpson, that does not even make sense. You think a secret radical Muslim would marry an atheist? Even if it was purely to piss off Christians? Sleeper agent jihadists are not known for their tolerance of Enlightenment principles! Seriously, West Virginia, we are going to give you back to Virginia unless you can demonstrate that you can handle statehood again. And no one wants that.
West Virginia, everybody! Land of rampant racism*, morbid obesity, and it's so poor and so unemployed that there is a town named Poverty in West Virginia. I'm making fun of you, WV. Buck up and raise yourselves.
*Although, as my Dad pointed out, the other primary of the day was the home of the largest KKK rally of all time, in Kokomo, Indiana.Labels: idiots, money, Obama, politics, race |
| posted by Steve @ 11:49 AM |
|
|
|
| Monday, May 12, 2008 |
| Why will you be voting? |
We need a President who (choose one):
0 Wears a flag pin
0 Will solve all my problems
0 Makes intelligent decisions
You know what I would check.Labels: politics, president, voting |
| posted by Steve @ 9:56 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, May 08, 2008 |
| Misguided Feminism |
I've written on productive feminism before (1, 2), but this bears another mention. There is a cry going up to the heavens from hardcore feminist supporters who are saying they will not vote (or, incredibly, vote for McCain) out of anger about Senator Clinton's loss of the Democratic nomination:
The Obamabots are under the delusion that if Obama wins the nomination (which he hasn't yet, by the way), all of us in the Hillary camp will forget about the misogyny and come over to their side. Make nice for the sake of party unity. Forgive all the abuse. Nope. Several of us have tried over the past couple of months to explain why that won't happen, but the Obamabots don't seem to understand. And I know why: it's because they don't take sexism seriously. When women say we will not reward misogyny, we’re laughed off. The Obamabots just tell more jokes and hurl more insults and write more crass articles about how the little lay-dees have their little pan-tees in a twist.
While I can see why a feminist would be upset at general bias, Barack Obama was not the cause of that bias. In fact he made a point to tell her to stay in as long as she wanted to, emphasized their friendship in speeches, and never said anything to or of her that could be construed as sexist. He obviously didn't agree with all of her policy ideas, and many of her campaign tactics, but frankly that's what an election should be about anyway. So why blame him?
Moreover, he two candidates' stances on a wide variety of issues is very similar. If a feminist were to agree with Clinton's policy ideas and was not just voting for her because of her gender (which would in of itself be sexist), then he is the next-best candidate. If John McCain appoints judges to overturn Roe v. Wade as a result of a feminist boycott, well, you could press shirts with irony like that.
Not everyone who votes against Obama is a racist and not everyone who votes against Clinton is a sexist. Surely some people are! But to lump everyone together like that is counterproductive because it insults feminist allies. All of the falsely-accused will stop listening to reasonable feminists.
Finally, I wish they would consider the possibility that while there's certainly a LOT of misogyny that has been spewed, a lot of people really, honestly, just thought Obama was a better option on purely merit-based grounds.Labels: feminism, idiots, Obama, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 4:34 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Great understatements in Photojournalism |
I personally wouldn't have been able to refrain from commenting on the idiot carrying this picket.
The anti-immigration people never seem to do their arguments any favors by jabbering (or painting) incoherently while foaming at the mouth all the time.
 Dialog, people; not bullhorns.Labels: idiots, immigration, Mexico, politics |
| posted by Steve @ 10:22 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, May 01, 2008 |
| The Heart Attack Special |
Back when I used to work at a smoothie/sandwich shop right on University Blvd., I made
myself all sorts of sandwiches for myself for lunch. I probably saved myself ten grand working at that place by drinking smoothies and eating there two or three times a day. Sometimes when I was feeling particularly meat-loving, I would make what I called the "Heart Attack Special."
When I was 20, and biked or walked everywhere, and ate two smoothies a day, I could have gotten away with a steady diet of nothing but canola oil and beer and stayed skinny, although I'd have died of a blood clot a lot sooner than I almost did (in 2004).
The heart-attack special was a sandwich made on toasted sourdough bread. It wasn't all bad - the "good" toppings were hummus, alfalfa sprouts, red lettuce, and red onion. But it also had four huge slices of cheese (2 Havarti, 1 extra-sharp cheddar, 1 provolone), a sprinkling of grated Parmesan cheese, Caesar dressing, three strips of bacon, three slices of roast beef, a slice of ham, three slices of pastrami.
It was a big damn sandwich.
This comes to mind because nowdays there are so many options out there that make my sandwich look positively good for your arteries. Some of the highlights:
I have a problem with mixing chocolate into breakfast foods or meats. It just seems wrong to me. I maintain that Coco-Puffs and Count Chocula are horrible, and only redeemed in any way by their pop culture impact.Labels: food, frightening thought, health care, true |
| posted by Steve @ 11:03 AM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Steve
Home: Tucson, Arizona, United States
About Me:
See my complete profile
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
|
| Links |
|
Blogroll
|
|
I know what's going to happen tomorrow and it is this:
After work I will go to the bar, order a beer and a cheeseburger, and watch the Mariners game, because I'm so fucking bored of this primary fight and I'm saving my energy and attention for talking shit about McCain once we eventually get a nominee.