Politics

We should honor President G. Bush for calling the American auto makers "failed companies". This is one of the only intelligent things I've ever heard the man say.

As most of you probably know, I am NOT a huge fan of the mainstream media. I think they've earned their status amongst the dregs of society's disrespected professions, alongside used car salesmen and divorce attorneys. But I don't think it's right to blame them for the political choices that a country makes. And I think that tendency derives from several very flawed and detrimental notions: 1) That people are stupid, and tend to do what they're told. 2) That there is always a correct position, and that the job of the media is to get on the right side of the issue. 3) That the press is qualified to determine the truth in all cases. (e.g. "We can put a man o…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081216/pl_afp/financeeconomyusbush;_ylt=AsjFc097dv7q8V.O0_MWVs3v5rEF This bizarre sort of doublethink does not seem exclusive to Bush. It belies the notion that we really don't have a free market and haven't had one for quite sometime. Was all the lip service paid to the "free market" during the Bush years actually destructive? I believe so.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1208/121708cdpm1.htm?rss=getoday The ranking member of the bipartisan House Oversight Committee, Republican Darrell Issa, is moving to increase the GOP side of the panel's oversight power. He wants the committee to be able to investigate ready to probe executive branch waste, fraud and abuse on their own even without bipartisan cooperation. This seems like a good idea... I just wish Democrats would've thought of it. What was this committee doing for the past 8 years while the Bush administration spied on innocent Americans, approved the torture of prisoners, and outed an undercover CIA operative?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3JbAFqGjgoM&refer=home "Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper suspended the country’s legislature for more than seven weeks in a bid to stave off a challenge from opposition parties seeking to bring down his government." Eh? They can do that?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10121034-54.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6158046.html I think appointing someone with bona-fide science credentials as well as having director experience at the national-lab level bodes extremely well. It certainly reaffirms that Obama will be listening to scientists about scientific matters. (It's also neat that someone I've met at a science conference will likely end up a cabinet member)

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ConductUnbecoming/story?id=6431739&page=1 Well, there it is. Wow. I'm glad this all got caught ahead of time, but wow, what a debacle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?pagewanted=all Obama plans a "vast infrastructure program, which also includes work on schools, sewer systems, mass transit, electrical grids, dams and other public utilities. The green jobs would include various categories, including jobs dedicated to creating alternative fuels, windmills and solar panels; building energy efficient appliances, or installing fuel-efficient heating or cooling systems." It would also "expand broadband Internet access, to make government buildings more energy efficient, to improve information technology at hospitals and doctors’ offices, and to upgrade computers in schools." …

We've been talking in another thread about the passage in three states of laws banning gay marriage. One of the interesting reasons being discussed in the media and amongst analysts is the idea that the passage happened as a result of large minority turnout -- specifically African American voters. They may have been 96% in favor of Obama, but 70% of them also voted against gay marriage. In one sense they saved Democrats, putting their man in office at the most critical moment ever. But in so doing they also helped deal a severe blow to a major progressive cause. And that is not the only issue they differ with politically correct progressives on. What I'm wonderin…

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/04/iraq.security/index.html?eref=rss_topstories The Iraqi government ratified a plan which would see all U.S. combat troops withdrawn from Iraqi cities and towns by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. troops out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. I'm really glad to see this happening. It's really starting to feel like our long national nightmare may finally be over soon.

I tried to find some other source for this story since I know how some here are biased to Fox, but it really doesn't matter, Louie is speaking for himself. (Further, I hope this link works...) http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21533709/read_my_lips.htm?pageid=23043 Texas congressman Louie Gohmert proposes we ditch 2008 federal income tax collection. Interesting. I like the statement of faith in the people to have their money back. Gee, how nice we be trusted with our own money. Of course, I hear the cries now from those who believe in maximizing revenue for the government. Although it doesn't entirely fall on deaf ears, as this time I'm even wonder…

Oh goodness... I'm just shocked. Shocked, I tell you! I'd never have expected it from old Dick. He was always such a nice boy, and always kept to himself. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h9PvQtj8plxTnRZS7hHmJap_Rt2AD94ICFU00 A Texas judge has set a Friday arraignment for Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a state senator and others named in indictments accusing them of responsibility for prisoner abuse in a South Texas federal detention center. <...> The highest-profile indictment charges Cheney and Gonzales with engaging in organized criminal activity. It alleges that the men neglect…

I need to see phrases like the ones below disappear from discussion here: The technical accuracy of these kinds of statements is irrelevant. Open discussion is not about making your opponent look like a fool. This sort of thing actually stiffles the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. Do you want your opponents to tell you what they think, or do you want them to shut up and comply? Pick one. Thanks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120101277.html Well, at least we can put that one to rest. What's funny is how contentious and polarizing the issue of whether or not we were in a depression actually was. I'm reminded of this clip of Peter Schiff repeatedly issuing warnings about the state of the economy only to have them downplayed, ignored, or laughed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw Is this another issue of one side being blinded by political polarization, or was much of the country just not paying attention?

I *hate* Tucker Carlson, but in this video he's awesome: This video underlies the real problem with assault weapons bans: the legislation is authored by people who are unfamiliar with the items they're attempting to legislate, and the end-result is legislation that doesn't make any sense. For example, in this video, the proposed legislation defines guns with a barrel shroud as being assault weapons. This makes about as much sense as defining computers with a heat sink that can accommodate an 80mm fan as being supercomputers. Worse, the author of the legislation had no idea what a barrel shroud actually is. Asked repeatedly by that horrible douchebag a…

Unions have failed our country, and will continue to do so until their power is curtailed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/08/national/main4586103.shtml This is why you should ALWAYS wear a condom. The 8 year old kid killed his father and coworker in cold blood with a gun. The judge is considering trying him as an adult, and giving him the maximum sentence to be served in a juvenile detention facility. If a child commits an adult crime (murder, DUI, manslaughter) should they be tried as an adult?

What changes do you believe WILL take place during the next four years? Note that I'm not asking you what you believe should happen, I'm asking you what you believe WILL happen. Taking into consideration political realities, economic and social realities, both at home and abroad, what do you think Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress will actually accomplish? I'll start off with my own predictions: - Assault weapons ban - Ending "don't ask don't tell" (75% of Americans now support the idea of gays in the military, versus 45% in 1993) (this requires congressional approval, btw) - An end to the ban on embryonic stem cell research - Closing of Guanta…

Interesting op-ed piece by Ron Paul on CNN's web site today: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html I don't agree with some of his point but it's pretty insightful and worth a read. Some things that stood out to me: I think these points are right on target. What do you all think?

In the book Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market talks about the three underground economies in the United States: marijuana, foreign labor, and pornography. Do you think that proper regulation and taxation of these markets could make a big impact in reducing our national deficit? I do...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDuXte5q_Mq4U0JKrcPRUJppvHVQD949MCJ81 I guess Harry Reid must have missed Obama's victory speech, in which he spoke of bringing people together and listening to one another. Today he went after Joe Lieberman in one of the most obvious examples of political pandering since the nomination of Sarah Palin as VP candidate. The technical right: To force members of your political party to play ball your way. The message: Support Republicans, and we will destroy you. This is a perfect example of how different President Obama will be from the partisan leaders of Congress. Something will have to be done about that, or th…

There's been some discussion about this, however I felt it deserved its own thread. California passed a ballot initiative which amends their state constitution specifically to exempt same-sex couples from being recognized as married. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) Some questions to consider: 1) What are the moral ramifications of granting homosexual couples different rights than heterosexual couples? 2) What do you think about a group of out-of-state mormons initiating an amendment to the constitution of a state they don't even live in? 3) What ramifications do you think this amendment…

In light of all the people complaining that the right of same sex couples to marry is restricted, what do you all have to say about the other restrictions on who people marry? And why don't the same or similar reasons apply to gay marriage? Why should polygamy be banned? Why does the state have the right to prevent people from marrying based only on the fact that they are already married to someone? Note also that there is a lot of tradition allowing polygamy. Why should marriage between close relatives be banned? If the only reason is to prevent inbreeding, should marriage between close relatives be allowed so long as they don't have children by each other? Note …

Are gay people asking for a new right (the right to gay marriage), or are they asking to retain a right that people are currently trying to take away? To my understanding, the question boils down to, Did the word "marriage", at the time when marriage laws were written, include same-sex marriage? Or, alternately, Is it acceptable to change a law by changing the modern meaning of words in the law, or does that require a new law?

From Obama's web site: http://change.gov/americaserves/ Now THAT strikes me as socialism. Bear in mind that as stated this would affect all students, however they are paying for their educations. It's possible something was just misworded here and it is actually intended to apply only to students receiving financial aid (this would be more consistent with statements made on the campaign trail). What do you all think?