As if we didn’t already know this, this should make it clear that Jon Stewart should be the one running for President.
Jon Stewart on Arlen Specters tape destruction investigation.
Arlen Specter is an embarrassment to this country. I dearly hope his constituents remember this next time he comes up for reelection.
If Jon Stewart didn’t make this so funny, if we just saw this as it is… we’d be crying, not laughing.
Now, The Onion is something I no longer read regularly. It’s more or less predictable humor that gets old fast. That being said, there’s occasionally a gem. In that vein, I present to you: Do we really want another black president?
I do think the article is missing some facts, however. Despite giving kudos to President Huge Black Guy, it forgets that HBG also planned a strike against the evil Mr. Zorg that decimated the fleet to no avail. In fact, it increased the power of the evil.
So I hear on the radio on the way to work this morning that tonight is Bushie Boys last State of the Union address. What is he expected to talk about? Iraq. Iraq and how we’ve improved their lives, their country, in the long run. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. I don’t really feel like arguing about it. But last I checked, he wasn’t the president of Iraq. He was the President of the United States of America.
Tell me one thing he’s done for the United States.
Alright, when the fuck did we go off the deep end?
I dealt with Ron Paul. I dealt with anti-Hillary, anti-Guilliani (both of which I agree with, but don’t need to see constantly). I deal with the constant Alternet postings. But now - what the fuck?
So yesterday, some Iranian boats charge a U.S. destroyer, cruiser and frigate (I believe it was) in international waters. Annoying, provocative, yes. But what’s Reddit’s response? “Oh, it must have been the fault of the U.S.” Bad enough. Then, I log on today, and WHAT THE HELL? “If you believe Iran “harassed” U.S. ships, you have forgotten the USS Vincennes.” WHAT THE FUCK? What on EARTH does a 1988 shoot down of an airliner have to do with whether or not the Iranian boats charged U.S. ships in 2008?
Here’s my real point, Reddit: IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CONSPIRACY/WHINING/BULLSHIT POLITICAL CRAP, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
If you have evidence that the U.S. started this confrontation or something like that, please, bring it forward. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
That is all. Thank you. And yes, I’m going to submit this myself. Get over it.
Burn karma, burn.
Posted at: http://politics.reddit.com/info/64vi8/comments/
Late edit:
I’d like to make it clear that I am no neocon or anything of that nature. I’m an anti-war, registered democrat, etc. But claims by EITHER side, without evidence, are just ridiculous. Also, just because I don’t support the war, doesn’t mean I think everything that happens is automatically our own fault.
Later edit:
Although I expected my (non-existent) karma to burn over this story, what surprises me is that even though all I’m saying is “when you post something, make sure what is said is actually backed up,” even in the comments people are making assumptions about my political opinions, my opinions on Reddit as a whole, etc. Disagree with me if you like, I have no problem with that. Just don’t think you know my politics or opinions based on this post.
Wow, so the Iowa caucuses are over, and we’re looking at Huckabee for the Republicans and Obama for the Democrats. Surely nothing we’d've predicted very long ago (especially Huckabee). More surprising to me, however, was Edwards placement - he beat Clinton, 30% to 29%. Granted, he’s spent the last long while campaigning in Iowa, so I doubt he’ll do as well in New Hampshire/etc, but that’s still pretty impressive.
I really can’t stand most of the [front runner] candidates on either side this time, which is surprising. Usually there’s one I could at least stand (John Kerry, while not being great, was fine by me in 2004). This time, there’s just no one. I like Chris Dodd. I like Joe Biden. But neither has a shot in hell. I really like Al Gore (why on EARTH didn’t he run?). Too bad Stephen Colbert didn’t run nationwide (and therefore, didn’t run at all).
So Obama with 38%, Huckabee with 34%. Hardly blinding endorsements, but they’ll do for a first state caucus. But Huckabee DOES have Chuck Norris. You can’t really argue with that.
Here’s what I’m waiting for now: Michael Bloomberg. That’ll be an interesting candidate. He has a chance to effect elections more this time than any 3rd party candidate in history. Ross Perot couldn’t come close to what Bloomberg can do. Our nation is so split right now, with such polarizing candidates - we’ll see. It’d be tough or impossible for Bloomberg, but I bet he could get more of the vote than Perot did.
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” - Aldous Huxley
Huxley goes on to speak about love of servitude being impossible without economic security. I however argue that love of servitude is caused by a fear of losing perceived security.
I could not possibly compete with Huxley’s writing, his ability to convey his ideas. I have no pretensions to being a great writer. What I do know is that in the United States today, we are faced with the ever increasing power of the Executive. This trend has been occurring for some years - it is not merely a result of George W. Bush. But under him it has reached a peak we could never have dreamed of.
In a secure world (both economically and physically), people do not fear the government, people do not listen to the government, people do not need the government. People do not make war, unless there’s further gains to be had. It is our insecurities that cause war. But that’s an issue for another day. More important to this discussion is that rather than being a secure world in which the government becomes stronger, becomes totalitarian, and in which we love them for it, is one in which we fear a LOSS of security, be it real or perceived.
Let us explore the United States leading up to, and since, 9/11. We existed in a prosperous country which had never had much of a physical security issue. We were confident in the fact that, though the world might have problems, those problems, those wars, did not effect us in our day to day lives. For the most part, the country had money. For once, the deficit wasn’t significant. We had a President that couldn’t find his own nose, but it didn’t matter, because there was nothing to worry about. He’d be ineffective and he’d be gone in a few years.
September 11, 2001 changed all that. This President went from completely ineffectual to being able to get and do whatever he wished, no matter how crazy. No matter how much the rights of the populace changed. No matter how much money we spent. No matter how many lives were lost. He could do no wrong. Or at least, he could do no wrong that would make the majority wish him gone. After barely being elected to office in 2000 (and indeed, it took the Supreme Court to confirm that), he actually INCREASES his lead over his challenger in 2004. He took our rights away, and we loved him for it. DMCA, Real ID, FISA amendments, plane security, torture, whatever he wanted, we gave him. Sure, some people complained, but that didn’t stop him. That didn’t stop US. The more his popularity dropped, the more he was able to get what he wanted. The more power we gave him.
Why? Why did this happen? Because we feared that worse could happen. We feared that by not giving up some of our rights, by not endorsing the President, we would be putting ourselves at even greater risk, both physically and economically. When asked what President Bush has done for this country, I find that most fans of him cannot tell me. The answer is always “it could have been worse” or, with the more honest of them, flat out “I’d rather give him this power than have him be unable to stop an attack.” That’s assuming that the power has actually done that, which many would argue against. Again, not a subject I care to get into here.
My point is simple, and it is this: Fear gives politicians power, gives them love. Happiness does not. Clinton was well liked, yet for a minor sexual scandal was nearly impeached. Bush has brought rights in this country to its knees, and opinion polls aside, grumbling aside, we love him for it.
 ”Un-American activity cannot be prevented or routed out by employing un-American methods; to preserve freedom we must use the tools that freedom provides.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower
This story, despite its many flaws, is just so interesting to read that I thought I’d post a link to it:
Christopher Dodd, senior senator from Connecticut, stood up for America today… literally. In the first filibuster in 15 years, which didn’t last very long, Mr. Dodd attempted to block FISA - a bill that would have granted the telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their actions in recent years. He succeeded, at least for now. Harry Reid, the pathetic excuse for a Democratic house leader, pushed the bill back until 2008. Not much of a reprieve, but it’s something at least.
For those of you not aware of the issue, the telecomm’s (with the notable exception of Qwest) had been giving the government your personal information without any sort of court order for the last bunch of years. This bill would have given them immunity from suits against them for it.
To be fair, FISA isn’t all about that issue - it allows for a process for obtaining your information (including wiretaps). It requires the government to go to a special “FISA court” to get permission to do so. This is generally not controversial. But what the government wants (read: Bush) is to not have to do even that. This obviously raises concerns. If you think that’s a good idea, I don’t want to live in your America.
Thank you, Senator Dodd.
In an admittedly controversial article & “blog” posting on the New York Times, the author(s) claims that young women in New York City now make more than their male counterparts. Perhaps as much of 117% of mens wages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/for-young-earners-in-big-city-gap-shifts-in-womens-favor/
Commentators are quick to point out that this applies only to young women. After that, there’s many & varied opinions.
Some of my favorites:
Thanks Patricia. You mean that if you aren’t working, then you come back to the workforce, you aren’t going to be in the same position as someone that has been working the whole time? This doesn’t sound like discrimination to me - it sounds like companies allotting their resources to where they are best used.
New York, Chicago and San Francisco have become so hostile to white men that any rational educated white men will choose to work elsewhere I am sure.
— Posted by Amsterdamsky
While I’m not sure how rational this comment is, it is a good point - but not just for those cities. How often do you hear about how much we need to do to help the woman, the minority, the disabled, the whatever. How often do you hear that we need to help the white man?
Re: David (4),
“Working towards gender equality within the workplace now involves changing the culture of the workplace so that equality of pay is not the only measure of gender equalityâ€
In my office, women get 8 weeks paid vacation if they decide to have a baby. Men can get 1 week. Where is the equality in that?
— Posted by Paula
No comment on this one necessary.
Dirty little secret: Women have enjoyed many advantages from the “old boy network†and in many cases have been the agent most resistant to cracking the “glass ceiling.†After all, if your number 1 priority is to marry a bread winner,live in luxury and not work the rest of your life, the exploited bread winner better be baking. If they now want to make as much or more as men but still have the same expectations re: their eventual life of leisure when they get around to it, then something’s got to, or at least should, give.
— Posted by chris
Very interesting take on it, really. I’ve heard it before, but I think it’s an argument that most people can’t wrap their brains around. I’ll tell you one thing though: my girlfriend would love this argument. And I’m not saying that sarcastically.
And finally, the best comment of them all:
Good.
Now SHE can take ME out for a date.
Now SHE can buy the diamond ring, pay the mortgage, pay for the groceries, and buy the car.— Posted by Orange
The Simpsons Tonight!
The Simpsons Movie came out last night (this morning?) at midnight… sadly, I did not see it then. 8 hours until I do!
Writing Code
I hate writing code. I don’t write code. Except that I do, sometimes (PHP), for my websites. And there’s nothing I hate more than code. Except for code that doesn’t work, for no apparent reason. Damn it.
Income Tax
To people that don’t like the income tax: Deal with it. I don’t care how many court challenges you fight it with, it’s here to stay.  And more than that, it SHOULD be here to stay. You use all the services it pays for, just like the rest of it. So quick your whining.
It is important to note that this data is dealing only with young women. Once those women choose to have children, they will face significant discrimination in employment and wages.
— Posted by Patricia K.