Mens Rea

Angry White Women

I find it very interesting (but perhaps of no surprise) that Hillary's most ardent supporters are middle-aged white women. They are like lionesses in their defense of the undefensable. I get that they want a woman as president. I'd like to see that too. Hillary would make a fine president. However, the simple reality is that she ran a LOUSY campaign. This is not the media's doing. This is not Obama's doing. This is her doing. She did not adapt to the times. She was outmaneuvered by a relative newcomer. Obama's ground game was spectacular and it does not matter whether you like him or not. It's a fact.

But this Angry White Women phenomenon is scary at times. The level of emotion is at times shocking and shrill. They repeatedly claim that Obama has placed the race card. However, I have never seen his campaign say anything about race. The Clinton folks are attempting to have the people confuse the media's attempt to sensationalize the story as being somehow attributable to Obama himself. Bill has lost his touch. Hillary is trying to pull off something that is quit difficult. ON the one hand we all know she is one motivated person. However, if she does not act like the Angry White Women want her to, then she loses their support so she is being someone who she is not.

Hillary is making me sick

First, let me preface this by saying that if she gets the nomination (which is looking more unlikely every minute) I will most assuredly support her with full vigor. However, what she is doing is making me nauseated. I live in Michigan. For her to say that it would disenfranchise us demonstrates her machiavellian motives. When we ALL voted, we ALL knew that we were going to be disenfranchised. This is in stark contrast to Florida in 2000. Hillary supporters say that its the same. But if you are told your vote wont count, that is fundamentally different than tampering with the voting process DURING an election. Further, by not seating the delegates it was an equal opportunity and there was no bias against any one candidate. In 2000, obviously this was not the case. So for people to argue otherwise, spare me.

Going back to Michigan. I knew damn well that my vote was not going to count. I was, at the time, an Edwards supporter and his name was not on the fucking ballot. Neither was Obamas. ONLY Hillary and Kucinich. Obama never came here as the rules forbade him from doing so.

The decision in Michigan rests solely with the Democratic leaders. We wanted more of a say. Its a laudable ambition, but came with consequences. The thinking was that it would be wrapped up quickly thus it really would not matter in the grand scheme of things. It did! Politicians need to learn that tinkering with the voting process produces unintended consequences. Our country is too divided. Hell, the Democratic party is that divided.

Now we have the decision in Washington and our long serving Senator, Levin is arguing for a FULL seating of the Michigan delegation. Obviously, he is a Hillary supporter. But if he does that, I personally will give money to his Democratic challenger next time he runs for office. That is just fucking with the people. Why haven't politicians of ALL stripes learned that they don't always know better. Our world is far different than it was in '72 with McGovern when these arcane, convoluted rules were drafted. If Levin does this, this will be a fucking outrage. THAT will be disenfranchisement. How in the fuck can you seat a delegation when only one person is on the fucking ballot. Fuck you Carl Levin.

Colin Powell: a tacit endorsement of Obama?

Colin Powell, speaking with Wolf Blitzer, had this to say about Obama:

“I will ultimately vote for the person I believe brings to the American people the kind of vision the American people want to see for the next four years,” he said. “A vision that reaches out to the rest of the world, that starts to restore confidence in America, that starts to restore favorable ratings to America. Frankly, we've lost a lot in recent years.”

Obviously he is not endorsing yet, but this echos my previous post wherein I suggested that policy-wise there is not a large difference between Obama and Clinton. However, in the area of who could gain credibility in the eyes of the world, Obama, in my not-so-humble opinion, is the clear choice.

Aggressively Correcting Propaganda

You know this election season is exciting. Never in my life, or perhaps even in my parent's lifetime, have we seen such a wide-open contest among both parties. I will have no issue saying that my guy, John Edwards, gracefully bowed out. I have always liked Edwards and he singled-handedly moved the debate on the Democratic side to focus more on the rights and issues impacting ordinary working people. Although I am not working class, nor is any of my family, I was heavily influenced by my grandfather, a proud socialist, to look at the plight of the working man (or woman). That how we treat the everyday worker is a true reflection of the society we are. In so doing, if he had lived another decade, he would have been appalled.

When Edwards dropped out, I was left at a loss on who to vote for. To me there is not that much difference in terms of policy between the two. Hillary has a far more progressive and detailed healthcare plan while Obama has a better plan for Iraq. In general they are the same. However, after some soul searching, I am making my decision on a very unacademic perspective. While watching Obama's speeches, I got goosebumps. I felt proud to be an American. With Hillary, I am happy that we are not having George W., but she does not tickle my fancy. Obama has the ability to inspire. I suppose this is what made the youth flock towards RFK in 1968. He, singlehandedly has the ability to move this country past its racial wounds of old and into the the modern era. In so doing, he can show to the world, once again, that in America, anyone can be president. I am certainly looking forward to having a female president as well, but at the moment, Obama is far more about change than Clinto.

Going back to the title of this post, I keep on hearing from ignorant, stupid morons about Obama being a muslim. If I hear that again, I am going to petition them into the psychiatric hospital for being psychotic. They listen to this rhetoric and the emails that circulate and they believe it. Stupid stupid stupid people.

Deja Vu all over again

Oh so this morning I hear that Iran is now embarking on procuring "weapons of mass destruction." Then I heard that Condoleeza Rice is saying that they will "try" "some" diplomacy but that the US is prepared to take action, if necessary. Gee, haven't I heard this before? Those with an IQ of at least 100 must be saying how could anyone fall for this again? Oh, there are also those who are smart but have some twisted reason are war mongers or those who benefit from the plunder of war.

Why, oh why, does this President want to annihilate the United States? Oh I am not referring to any imminent attack, but my unilaterally and pre-emptively going to war with Iran will make us into a permanent pariah. We will have effectively become the new Soviet Union. Gasp you say? How can I compare the two. One a heathen, godless communist state with the benevolent, god-fearing democratic capitalist utopia? Because we are a bully. We do not believe in democracy. We force our issues down other throats. We do not believe in diplomacy. Violence is our main objective. We do not listen to our allies, only force them to our will. Seems to me that this sounds like the Soviet Union and their puppet regimes. Here we sit with the systemic erosion of our guaranteed liberties. Yet, nary a soul rises up in protest against this unprecedented attack on our basic liberties. We have become such consumers that our attention is so quickly diverted by the new Brittany Spears scandal. We are anesthetized to everything. We lack a collective conscious to examine our own government's behavior. We do not want to make waves thus we would rather agree with a cop, or a talk show host (I am talking to you Bill Maher) kicking out an annoying person than to stand up for free speech. Free speech is not always pretty. But its like being pregnant. You either are or are not.

So what in the hell does Bush have to fear by going into Iran? His family's Carlyle stock will only increase in value. Cheney will improve as he has Halliburton in his back pocket. Going to war would invariably help a Republican candidate for the same reason Bush won in '04 (Republicans are unjustly perceived be be better on the military). So, the sheeple will say "we need Guiliani to put a boot in Iran's ass." Our diplomacy is right out of a crappy country song. It is just pathetic. It is very embarrassing to be an American at this point with our administration. To the rest of the world, I truly am sorry. Our populous, in their paranoia about gay marriage ruining their own marriage or their BS support for pro-life (abortion is the single largest galvanizing force for the Republicans... do you honestly believe that they'd get rid of it? Without it, we'd have to really talk about the issues that matter: the economy, international uncertainty, stability...etc.).

Boy I hope I am wrong. I really really hope I am wrong on this one. But it has an eerie familiarity to it!

Technorati Tags: Bill Maher, Democracy, First Amendment, Free Speech, I hate Republicans, Iran, Preemptive War, WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Republican Candidates, Republicans, Spears Bald, Spears Crazy

First Amendment and Bill Maher

I absolutely love Bill Maher. I've seen him live twice and his "Real Time" on HBO is a must for me each week. I agree with Bill about 90% of the time. Last Friday's show was one of the most bizarre shows I've ever seen. He started off in his monologue stating that he will get pissed at the audience. What an amazing foreshadow. Somehow a group of 9/11 conspiracy theorists were in the audience and essentially taking over the show. Bill was patient...at first. Then he proceeded to almost personally escort them out of the audience. He was pissed. He then said that they were an audience, not a debate or open question forum and that audience was Latin for "to listen."

Ok... so should I be pissed for Bill kicking out someone who he may not agree with? How can I reconcile this behavior when I was aghast at the tasering of the University of Florida student. Here's the difference. The U of F case involved an open question and answer session to a siting elected official (i.e John Kerry) on a public university which is open to the public. Maher, on the other hand, is not an elected official, he's a comedian. Second, Bill has given an open invitation to conservatives to come to his show. He routinely gives those with differing opinions ample time on his show. BUT... I think he needs to be careful not to be so cavalier with his conduct to audience members. It is his behavior that makes it almost acceptable in many people's eyes that it was appropriate to remove the U of F student in the first place.

Technorati Tags: Bill Maher, Free Speech, First Amendment

John Stossel and "Give me a Break" environmentalism

John Stossel is one of those guys who is 50/50 with me. He has strong libertarian leanings that are consistent with mine. However, he is also easily swayed by weak opposing arguments rather than truly delving into the issues. On Friday night's 20/20 he suggested that the science is not in agreement that global warming is real and that it is caused by man. There are two arguments here:

1. That global warming is real. I think that we are finally seeing the time where we are approaching near unanimity with respect to this point. All signs underscore this perspective.

2. The etiology is open for debate- No it isn't. Just because you throw 4 scientists who are looking for the proverbial magic bullet does not mean that the scientific community is not in overall agreement. Look at evolution. If you believe in the literal interpretation of the Biblical account, I would say that you are clearly an irrational, impressionable, non-thinking luddite. Yes, there are "scientists" (in the sense that they have formal scientific training) who believe in creationism. But it is quite clear that their religious faith is overriding common sense and logic. By its very definition, faith defies logic so this is not surprising. Going back to global warming, I am not sure why those religious conservatives (yes, I am aware that some religious conservatives are finally having an enlightenment on this issue) feel compelled not to have man responsible for global warming. The argument is that climate change is cyclical and thus we do not know the exact etiology. That it has happened before without man's presence. Oh... these are the same people who believe that Fred Flintstone actually had a Dino, but I am on a tangent. Sure, we do not know everything about climatology. We do not know a lot of many things scientifically. It is imperfect. However, pure logic comes to being. Allow me to paint an analogy. People act that we just recently learned that smoking is bad for your health. Like suddenly in the early 70's when the surgeon general mandated warning labels that people said "oh, you know I never knew that it was bad." Bullshit. It is simple cause and effect. You do not have to be a scientist or a physician to realize the grave consequences of smoking. Listen to the hacking cough of a long-time smoker and tell me you can't put two and two together. Let's go back to global warming. Look at Phoenix where I just was and examine the smog levels. Examine these levels even 15 years ago before the mass migration. See a difference? Or is everything just coincidence? Look at Lake Erie in the 70's when it caught on fire due to pollution. Coincidence? Look at the acid rain in Mexico City... or the fact that in Manila if you wear a white shirt in the morning by the end of the day it will be grey. Coincidence? These nay-sayers of global warming would merely chalk this up to cyclical changes in our climate. I would agree that some of global warming is probably independent of man's behavior but there is a significant factor that is.

Now let us think about this. What does being "green" cost us? From a US foreign policy perspective, taking away the Middle East oil tit will improve our foreign policy and create a much safer environment. Ethanol? From all studies I have seen, it is a break even approach (i.e. it costs as much energy to produce as it gives). BUT... therein lies the fallacy. If we go energy independent, we are ultimately safer. Also, technology will undoubtedly improve. It is more of a psychological statement that we are trying. The Prius argument of the Fox News types. Oh, it takes 7 years to get the savings back in gas prices? Talk about a diversion. Do people buy a Prius to save money? NO... they buy it because it uses LESS fuel and therefore less pollution on the environment. Cost savings are not in the equation. The fact that the increase price will be offset in 6-7 years is only more incentive to go green because you achieve a savings while emitting less toxins. Hydrogen? This is a joke. This is the auto-industries lame attempt to chase the fountain of youth and purport to be investing in green technology. It is so far off that it should be put in the category of spontaneous fusion reactors. Electric? It was here already. The EV-1 was a brilliant car, but it was killed. Who killed it? Everyone peripherally connected to the auto and oil companies. Do the auto companies love big oil? I am not sure, but they made the deal with the devil years ago and are so joined at the hip that no serious threat to their domination is foreseeable. What about light-bulbs? Switching to fluorescence saves a ton of money and energy. What's the trade-off? A quarter of a second delay in turning on? Ok... switch to LEDs? Ann Arbor is poised to be the first city in the country where all street lights are LED. LEDs save money, energy and maintenance. Are they more costly? Yes, but it is quick to get them back and as more people adopt them the economies of scale will lower the price. I noticed the power (pardon the pun) of LEDs last Christmastime. For the first time we used LED Christmas lights and our electric usage was far less than the year before. It was a vivid reminder. I have switched over 50% of our bulbs to fluorescence (by the way, Ikea has excellent ones that are inexpensive and look like incandescence). The one major hinderance for fluorescence is non-dimmable ballasts. Hopefully more ballasts will be marketed.

I do not see any significant disadvantage to going green. SO why all the fuss? Fox News just acts as if you are pinko commie if you think green. That's why. They are so impressionable... like little lemmings being led anywhere.

Technorati Tags: 20/20, John Stossel, Environmentalism, Green Technology

Consistency is overrated

I have always held the opinion that consistency is a good thing. Your views should be consistent otherwise you are falling into the trap of hypocrisy. However, a very simply, yet profound statement by my favorite blogger, Fred Wilson (I'll link to the quote shortly) stated "I'd rather be right than consistent" has been resonating in my mind for weeks now. This is really so true. But to do so requires that you surrender your ego-attached position and admit that you were wrong. Not easy to do, especially for politicians. The only politician I have seen who has done this brilliantly is John Edwards when he describes his vote for the Iraq war. He fesses up and admits it was a bad vote based on faulty information with little analysis and probing. The Iran vote came just recently and many Democrats have learned their lesson no to trust Bush & Co. with anything that has to do with war or preemptive strikes. With the flagrant misleading over the buildup to Iraq, we have precedent not to trust this monkey. However, Hillary, in a brilliant chess move, voted for Bush. Do I agree with the decision? NO. However from a strategy position it was brilliant. Why? Because she has a base. A strong base and a base that this vote will not matter to. She is most likely the Democratic nominee and thus her vote will play out as if she is tough on terror, which will land her cross-over votes from Republicans, especially against the clowns running on the Republican side. It is classic Clintonian triangulation. However... this vote belies her current stance that her original vote for Iraq was based on misleading. To be mislead twice... shame on you?

Technorati Tags: Edwards, puppy

On authority....

On authority: it is important that we respect authority... BUT not blindly. I will never blindly follow authority for with authority oftentimes comes abuse. AS an adult, I feel it is my job as an American to challenge and question authority. It is how progress happens. This does not mean I do not respect those who are police officers and prosecutors. It does mean that I am inherently suspicious of them. I do not subscribe to the construct that a police officers opinion is necessarily more accurate than even a crack addict. It should be judged on a case by case basis. This is what a jury should do. I've met many a wonderful cop and many dedicated prosecutors. But there are more than a FEW rotten apples. This is also true in education. I teach my kids to respect authority. It is inappropriate for them to question per se, but I also inform them that if something goes against what we, as parents, have said, you do not have to answer and can ask to speak with us. Think I am paranoid? On Friday's 20/20 two boys were arrested and charged with sexual battery for spanking the girls on their ass. They called it booty day or something to that effect. These boys were 12 and 13 years old. The boys and girls both engaged in this behavior. The "victims" in the case feel that nothing wrong happened. The boys were questioned for five minutes and arrested and put in jail and subjected to multiple strip searches. They were not able to see their parents for three days. The boys were read their rights, but they did not understand them. They asked to speak with their parents and were denied. The prosecutor proceeded. They were staring at being in jail until they were 25 years old and be placed on the registered sex offender list. After six months dancing in the courts, the judge finally dismissed the charges after every alleged victim signed an affidavit stating that they did not feel they were victims. Who is to blame here? The cop for being such a nebish and being rash to judge and put a notch in his belt. The prosecutor bears most of the responsibility for their ego is out of whack. However, the American public bears responsibilty as well for religiously submitting to authority and not challenging such abuse. Want more? There was another feature on this 20/20 episode where a girl was working at a McDonalds in Kentucky. A manager receives a call saying they were a cop and that this girl had stolen a purse. The man on the phone demanded that the manager put her in the back room and asked her to empty her pockets and take her keys and cell phone. Then to my horror, the man on the phone asked the manager to have the girl strip searched. So they leave this poor girl in this room for over two hours...naked. Then the manager's fiance goes and watches her. The man on the phone asked the man to spank the girl. Then the man asked the fiance to perform oral sex on him. Eventually someone else was called in and they put a stop to this nightmare. Okay, who is to blame? The manager is certainly to blame and she was, in fact, charged with false imprisonment. The fiance was convicted of forced sodomy. The man on the phone was charge but acquitted. Should he have been? No, but in my wildest dreams I cannot fathom how anyone could ever do this. The victim said that she was taught to accept authority and not to question it, especially from adults and authority figures. The manager said that he sounded like a cop so she did what she was told. So... who's to blame? We often wonder how the holocaust happened. How could so many people turn a blind eye? How you ask? By blind submission to authority. I do not care if a cop were standing over my shoulder I would never listen to a stupid cop tell me to do something like this. It just would not happen. Man reading this would say the same thing, but ask yourself, do you trust a cop more than someone else by virtue that they are a cop? I do not. Does it make me better? No, but it is just the way I am. I am not alone and many people are starting to recognize the complacency of the American people. It is why a hyper authoritative president like Bush still has many people who say "he's the president therefore I agree with him." What in the hell? Wake up people, your life just may depend on it.

Technorati Tags: 20/20, authority

On Charter Schools

This week was very troubling. My son's school is a local alternative charter school and we were pleased with it until this year. A few things changed. First a new principal and second, a new teacher. Both of which are certainly potentially difficult in the transition to a young boy. The old principal guided the school to one of the best charter schools in the nation (yes, really). The new one is just... not like everyone else. There is a strictness to him that is reminiscent of my early experience in Catholic school where, by the grace of God and through strict discipline you will submit. I do not have to tell people how many people were fucked up by such conditions. I was fortunate in that I only had one or two incidents in school and the rest of my Catholic education was simply amazing. However, I went to school in Ann Arbor where even the Catholic school was more progressive. Unfortunately, my younger brother (five years my junior) saw traditional Catholic education in all its "glory." A Latin American principal was put into place. Tom Monoghan, owner of Dominos Pizza, had gone through is crisis of faith and became a radical Catholic complete with inquisition-like tactics. It traumatized my brother and his peer group, many of whom I had known for years. His group split up and they had been together since kindergarten. They would recruit snitches to find out where parties were and then send the police there. It is just hard to imagine that happening when I went there.

I am seeing deja vu now with this new principal. Look, I have no issue with strict discipline. I consider myself fairly strict as a parent. I teach respect, an appreciation of authority and adults in general (I will clarify this point later), I teach empathy and the "Golden Rule." But, I also know my son. Blind Draconian and arbitrary authority does not work with him. You will not out-will him. Thus, you have to adapt. This is the job for a teacher. Parenting and education is not rocket science. It involves listening and responding. I understand that there are schools where one simple submits to authority and complies. My school was sort of like that and I did not have that much trouble. I was a pretty easy and typical kid in that regard. But I know my son and that is why I chose NOT to send him to a traditional school. My son is very intelligent and thus I was not as concerned academically as I was socially and environment wise. So it came as shock to find this new principal implementing a newer set of discipline codes. We were not informed of this change in policy for if we had been, I think many like minded parents would have not sent their children back to this school.

One thing that I did not think about when sending my son to a charter school was the administration and the chain of command in such schools. Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are not governed by the local school district, but rather to the school's board of directors, much akin to a corporation which I am far too familiar with. While this is not per se a bad thing, the problem is that the board is typically made up of parents who wield an amazing amount of power. Having a fellow parent be the "boss" of the principal has significant consequence when it comes to impartiality and objectiveness. Additionally, like in my son's case, if they hire the wrong person, they have a vested interest in this person for they chose them. To admit the failure of the principal is to admit you made a hiring mistake which calls them directly into question. Also, because the dissemination of information is closely controlled by the board and the administration, many incidents which would otherwise be reported are quelled. My instinct is to fight. It is my nature. However, this issue is larger than me. By fighting I am using my son as a pawn in a battle of methodologies. As much as I would like to go to the mat, I wont. I think I am not alone. On the whole this allows this type of puritanical perspective creep in. I personally do not think that the US is as conservative as the media would have us believe. The problem is that they are far too often in positions of power and rather than fight them, people move around them and create their own sub-society. For example, examine the proliferation of home-schooling that has occurred in the past few years. It is an interesting group of very progressive parents along with very religious parents all who are recognizing the inflexibility of the school systems. Back in the days of old, there was strictness, however you typically had teachers who were called to their profession and were given the instruments to teach. Today, because of stupid bureaucratic policies such as No Child Left Behind, teachers are forced to comply with these measures which diverts them from truly teaching. Of course today's world is full of an alphabet soup of diagnosis, ADD, PDD, AS, et al. But speaking from someone who has years of experience with these groups of young people, I can say that it is not that difficult to make subtle changes to assist these children.

Technorati Tags: Authority, Charter schools, charter schools, chldren, discipline, authoritarian