rude and obscene

The American Taliban

2011-12-11T09:18:00.000-08:00

It is striking how the gentlemen competing to secure the republican nomination are so like the Taliban in their medieval longing for an intolerant, religious society in which any infraction should be met with the harshest possible punishment.

As far as I can judge, the only thing that separate Romney, Gingrich and Perry from the afghan tribesmen under the odious label "Taliban" is that their brand of corruption is more refined and profitable. Romney, Gingrich and Perry are rich beyond most people's dreams.

It is with some astonishment the world looks on while the american voter yearns to put into a position of power a figure that will complete the United States' transition to a authoritarian theocracy. It is with amazement the world looks on as half the population simply can't wait to turn the US into Afghanistan or Iran.

The republican party is the Taliban. They stand for precisely the same values as those held in other areas where bronze age myth is held in higher regard than reason, dignity and restraint - though their worship may differ in practice.

(With apologies to Mitt Romney - strictly speaking the religious piece of fan-fiction he believes in first saw the light of day roughly around the time of the industrial revolution and not the bronze age.)

Moral authority

2010-12-27T05:51:00.000-08:00

After nearly a decade of war with Afghanistan it may be time to take a step back and ask a couple of questions. The most important of which is "what are we hoping to accomplish?".

On the surface of things invading Afghanistan may have seemed like an inevitable response to the 9/11 attacks. Nevermind that the might of the Soviet empire never managed to gain control over the country during its more than a decade long foray into asymmetrical warfare: it was important for politicians to be seen as doing something. So even though the fight was not a winnable one, participation in it was expected.

But 10 years in, why are we not accomplishing much? Why is the situation still not under control?

Part of the reason is that we no longer have moral auhority.

The previous administration defined a new low with regard to government integrity and specifically a new low with regard to the integrity of individuals holding various posts within the government. The president, the vice president, the secretary of defense, he secretary of justice and an assortment of other secretaries and advisors demonstrated beyond any doubt that the US government is not beholden to law - international or national. We had a spectacular demonstration of how it is possible to hijack a democracy and abuse power to further private agenda. Be they motivated by profit, by personal agenda or religious zeal.

Wars were started on false premises and outright lies, the government made sure that certain private parties were able to profit handsomely from preferred treatment as part of the war effort. But worse yet: the US shed any and all principles that would otherwise have stood in the way of such gross indecency and abuse: the US is now on record as a supporter of rendition, torture and imprisonment without due process. Anything "rogue states" have been accused of in the past, the US is now in favor of. Criminal acts that in relatively recent history lead to harsh sentences, including capital punishment, are now deemed acceptable actions.

Add to that the installment of the likes of Hamid Karzai as the president of Afghanistan. An unprincipled, shady, weak-willed puppet of the US - though it could be argued that he is not even an effective tool in that respect since he appears prone to not keeping in line with the script that he has been given.

But the big problem rests with President Obama.

By not making any credible effort to address the transgressions of the previous administration, history has already started to solidify and Obama has cast himself in the role of Bush apologist. The war crimes perpetrated by the Bush administration will never be prosecuted. Of course, this means that Obama is, for all practical purposes, as morally bankrupt as the people who committed these war crimes.

Engaging in warfare against an opponent that has no infrastructure and does not depend on infrastructure cannot be won by traditional means. It can only be won by moral superiority. The US does not have moral superiority.

The "war on terror" is little more than a tool for radicalized religious zealots and war profiteers to further their agenda. As long as the Obama administration is unwilling to bring war criminals to justice and insists on wasting time on putting on a show, from perpetuating unwinnable wars to terrorizing its own population, the "war on terror" can only act as an amplifier for the agendas of the terrorists within and outside the US. Within and outside government.

I hope that Obama will yet do the right thing. Now that his chances of a second term has been significantly reduced, I hope that he will spend his remaining time in office to put things right. To put aside petty politics and to rebuild the foundations of the democracy. Because until the US rehabilitates its shattered moral principles, it will not be in any position to affect lasting positive change for itself or the world.

Obama to serve one term only

2010-12-08T02:28:00.000-08:00

Of course I don't know that Obama will serve only one term. Nobody knows that for sure now (with the possible exception of Nate Silver), but I can't help but feel that the rudder has come off Obama's presidency. Just as the United States really needed its president to make the trip up to Capitol Hill and straigthen out the House, he did the opposite: he buckled and now appears weak and unprincipled. The dire situation that has developed over the past weeks is rather extraordinary - and extraordinary measures to address this would have been appropriate.

The republicans clearly do not care about the people they represent. The republicans clearly do not represent fiscal responsibility. The republicans represent the top percent or so - the wealthy, the financially independent, those for whom the financial crisis was merely a temporary setback, not even noticeably affecting their life.

Allowing the tax cuts for the rich expire would not have hurt the rich in any way that would even be noticable to them. Moreover, we need not theorize about any trickle-down effects: we know for a fact that there is no such thing as a trickle-down effect. In fact: we know with absolute certainty that it has the opposite effect. It has been tried before and the data is in. We count this as scientific fact.

This can mean only two things: either the representatives are exceptionally incompetent or they simply do not care about 99% of the population.

With the middle class gone, the "American Dream" is dead.

Some economists have come up with a good metric for illustrating financial viability, or lack thereof: how many people can come up with $2000 if they are given 30 days to pony up the money. By saving, borrowing, selling possessions etc. Less than 50% of the United States population are capable of coming up with $2000 in 30 days. This means that over 50% of the population is one small misfortune away from insolvency and financial ruin at any given time.

And for the people in question, not even the tax cut can make up $2000 over a whole year, let alone 30 days.

It is sad that Obama and the democrats are so easily manipulated by the republicans. By extending the tax cuts for another 2 years there is now a big hole in the budget. A big hole in the budget that has to be filled by increasing the United States dependency on foreign countries. Countries like China and middle-eastern oil nations. These are the countries whose good will the US will now become more dependent upon.

Those tax cuts will not go away either. They will expire around the time of the next presidential election at which point they will be part of the presidential debate. And by now we know the score: the uneducated masses will reach for their $1500 in tax cuts, vote for whomever promises to get it for them, and sink the country into more debt.

You can't really do anything with $1500. If you slip and break something it won't even cover a significant part of your hospital bill.

It is even sadder that unemployment benefits for the victims of the financial crisis have only been extended for about 13 months. Though not all of them. These benefits only cover those that have been unemployed for less than 100 weeks. For those who have been unemployed for longer there is nothing. Nada. Zero.

The Obama administration has caved. It has caved to the republicans, it is actively rewarding those who were already doing fine and those who created the financial crisis -- while it has done little or nothing for those, due to no fault of their own, fell victim to the financial crisis.

Shame on you, Obama. Shame on you, Biden. Shame on you Pelosi. People were counting on you and you let them down.

But most of all: shame on the american voter who is demonstrably too stupid to take care of him- or herself. Shame on the american voter for not putting country first and for being too uneducated, too easy to lead, too eager to get distracted by straw-men to make sure the nation's affairs are put in order. Shame on the american voter for steering the country towards insolvency and absolute dependence on nations that represent values opposite of those values you like to think you represent.

As for the republicans in the House, I don't think they are capable of feeling shame for wanting to sacrifice the independence and future of the nation at the cost of enriching the top 1% wealthiest which they represent; and only the top 1%.

The war on the middle class.

2010-12-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

Wikileaks and history

2010-12-04T04:22:00.001-08:00

The press has been abuzz with stories about Julian Assange for the past months. Lately some prominent politicians and pundits have called for the assassination of Assange as well as death sentences for those who supply him with information.

I can't help but think how badly things have gotten out of hand and the terrible, terrible hipocrisy of the west. When I grew up I was told how evil Soviet Russia, China and places like Cuba were. Places where there was no free speech, where people were jailed without proper legal proceedings, where the state had no respect for human rights, where torture was acceptable, wars were fought for the wrong reasons and the population was kept ignorant of what was going on.

This is us now. We censor, we torture, we jail people without trial, and we start wars for reasons that turn out to be lies. We even allow weak and paralyzed leaders to let extremists dictate how the population is terrorized. At airports and by having their private lives invaded. Sometimes by mean-spirited unskilled labor. Our "inalienable rights" are not so inalienable after all.

Though one should be careful to draw parallels to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, but I think it is necessary. The holocaust was allowed to happen largely because it was kept a secret to most of the population. There were no images circulating from the camps. There was no official acknowledgement from the authorities that millions of people were being systematically murdered.

Admitting the existence and nature of the camps would, of course, made it hard for the nazi regime to secure the needed support. Secrecy and the ignorance of the population was key.

Had the horrors of the holocaust been known to the population of germany, and outside, it is doubtful if it would have been allowed to proceed. But it wasn't known and millions of people did get killed in ways that are too horrible to contemplate. Millions of people were killed in a country that was considered one of the most advanced and civilized countries of its time.

The holocaust scares us because it showed us what we are capable of. It shows us when government is allowed to operate behind a veil of secrecy. When the checks and balances do not work.

Many of the things that Wikileaks have published are historically important documents. It is important to document war crimes. It is important to document that our politicians are misleading us. It is important to document whom and what we are supporting. What we are letting our leaders do in our name.

And it is important that we know about these things now. While we can still do something about it.

The transgressions, lies and atrocities would probably come to light at some later point in history. When it is too late to do anything about them. We can visit the holocaust museums at Auschwitz -- but it won't bring back the people who were tortured and exterminated there. The world eventually learning about the camps saved exactly nobody.

What would history have looked at if there was a Wikileaks in the 30s and 40s? What would history have looked at if we knew then.

Indeed, what Assange is doing is unpleasant for diplomats and world leaders. But a bit of embarrasment and the possible prosecution of war criminals and inept politicians is a small price to pay to ensure that history won't look back on 2010 with the same sort of regret we look back at dark times in our recent history.

And as for putting people at risk: no credible evidence has been presented for this. And there is a precedent for this already. Scooter Libby outed a CIA operative; while serving in the administration -- yet his punishment for this act of treason was a mere slap on the wrist. Why should someone who isn't even part of the government be held to any higher standard?

And since Obama, and the US, have demonstrated that the US does not prosecute its war criminals, prevention and dissemination of knowledge is critical. There will be no trials. There will be no upholding of the laws. There will be no justice. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld will never be held to the standards that the US has held other war criminals to in the past. The precedent set is that the US president and his staff are free to commit war crimes without fear of prosecution. This is worse than a mere totalitarian regime operating in some hot and humid part of the world: this is us. This is what we are. And we are foregoing the moral high ground of expecting anything more from others.

We must know. We must not repeat history. We must hold our leaders to higher standards.

Dilemma

2010-02-14T11:39:00.000-08:00

I travel a quite a bit in my current job. This means I spend a lot of nights alone in hotels. Tonight was valentine's day and I really would have wanted to spend the night with my GF. But I have an important meeting tomorrow, so it was critical I be there bright and early tomorrow. Which means I had to go tonight.

Since there is nothing decent AND quick to eat around the hotel, I usually go out and have a burger. On my way to the burger joint I spotted a homeless guy. The same homeless guy I usually give my spare change on my last day in town when I am here. A skinny, dirty fellow, obviously a heroin-addict.

I don't give him my money because I condone his heroin abuse. I give him my money because I think it is better than him having to steal it to feed his addiction. Begging in one of the richest countries in the world must be crushingly humiliating. And if he is willing to do that, I'd feel an idiot not to empty my pockets of the spare change I have. I usually give him about $10-20 in coins.

Anyway, it was cold tonight. And since it is the first night of the trip, I have not accumulated any spare change yet. I went to the burger place and ordered two meals. On the way back I walked over to him, sat down, held out the the food and said "you hungry?". He looked up, then slowly reached out and accepted the food with a "thank you".

For a brief moment while walking down the street I felt good.

Then I felt bad about feeling good.

It isn't like I really did anything to help him. I felt bad about not staying there. About not eating with him and perhaps talk a bit.

I think I'll do that tomorrow if he is still there. It'll be late tomorrow with all the work that has been scheduled. But if he's there late tomorrow night I'll bring him coffee and something to eat and have a chat.

Who is watching?

2009-11-08T19:28:00.000-08:00

Imagine you get a new neighbor. About the same time your neighbor moves in next door, fruit starts to disappear from your garden. Suspicious of your new neighbor you ask him if he knows anything about this. Your neighbor admits to stealing the fruit, then goes on to blame you for not keeping an eye on your garden. "How can you expect to not have your fruit stolen unless you watch your garden?", he states with a shrug.

A sentiment I have often heard from people of faith is "how can there be any morality without God?".

I would much rather have a neighbor that respects my property because it is wrong to steal rather than because he knows I am watching.

Likewise I think it says something about the lack of moral character when people think we need God to act morally.

If you believe God is needed for morality they you will never be a moral person. With or without God.

On religion.

2009-11-07T16:37:00.000-08:00

I do not believe in God.

Unlike many, I have never bothered to self-apply any label to my lack of faith. Mostly because it has never been important to me to precisely communicate which flavor of non-faith I would sort under. If you like, you can call me an "atheist".

It is not like I had any choice in the matter.

At no time did I make a conscious decision not to believe in any deity or religion. When I was a kid I can remember reading historic accounts of the crusades, of the middle ages, and of wars being fought, apparently over beliefs, but even as a 12 year old child I assumed that these were just ulterior motives. That they were excuses for everything from xenophobia to the acquisition and retention of political power.

As a kid I did have an above average intelligence, but I did not, and I still do not, consider myself all that smart. I just have an appetite for knowledge, and then, as now, I spend a lot of time on my own just thinking.

By the time I was 15 I had read the bible cover to cover twice. I felt that since the bible plays such a central role in our culture, whether you believe in what it says or not, I ought to at least have read it.

The first time I read it must have been the summer I turned 14. It was not an enjoyable read, but I toughed it out and finished the whole thing.

The second time I read the entire bible was the year after. This time I took notes and it took me a few weeks longer to get through the whole text. I also borrowed a stack of books at the library. Mostly history books, books on middle eastern culture and some books on certain theological subjects (not all of which made much sense to me at the time).

I also spent some time reading criticisms of the bible as well as rebuttals of criticisms, though they were not as easy to come by in the 80s when all I had access to was the town library. (However the librarian (a devout christian) was indeed very helpful. Not only in getting books, but in discussing and explaining matters of theology and suggesting subjects for further study)

By the time I was done reading the bible the second time I felt a great sadness. A great sadness that one would consider a text largely shaped by centuries of politically motivated editing and shoddy translations, cultural and historical ignorance a holy text.

It made me sad that all those people would turn up for mass every sunday -- neither understanding the religion they believed in nor the circumstances that shaped it. The majority of them had most likely not read the whole bible or even significant parts of it. Much less tried to understand the historical contexts (plural) that shaped it. I can't say I felt very sorry for those who had not even bothered to read it: if you are willing to believe in the bible without having read it, well, then you are truly a moron -- I am sorry, but there really isn't any nice way to put it.

The people I felt truly sorry for were the people who having read it still were unable to see it for what it is. Or the people who didn't feel the need to understand the times and the cultures that created and shaped it and ask themselves important questions about how we should deal with the many problems with the text.

It may seem strange to christians that, at least intellectually, I saw the bible and christian faiths as two very separate things.

At the time I did not believe in God, but I was open to the possibility that there might be a higher power -- some form of consciousness outside ourselves. I, ironically enough, considered it unscientific to rule it out absolutely without proof one way or another.

For the most part I saw christian faith as just a manifestation of a belief in some consciousness outside our own. I must admit that I saw concrete religions as being a synthetic construct -- nice (and many not so nice) fairy tales to give abstract concepts some shape.

Concrete analogies for the unsophisticated mind, if you will.

The fact that the christian myths are so elaborate to the point where they have time and again sparked theological controversy I mostly put down to the fact that along the way the church got a bit carried away in the storytelling and ended up inventing too many conflicting and internally inconsistent narratives. I felt that whatever meaning might have been there at the beginning has been perverted by excessive elaboration, cultural and historical ignorance and misinterpretation.

And we need not go far back in our own recorded history to observe this. The mormons believe in a whole new set of fairy tales spun by known con-man Joseph Smith.

From I was 16 until George W. Bush came to power, I didn't really think much about religion. There were other, more important subjects to think about. It was only when Bush came to power it dawned on me what a terrible shadow religion was once again casting on our society. The 80s was an optimistic time. As a teenager I, rather naïvely assumed that we were progressing -- that we were shedding superstitions and striving for enlightenment. I remember watching "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan on TV and feeling a sense of optimism for the future.

When I see Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" today I am greatly saddened. We have regressed. We have allowed our society to be bullied by religion.

I generally have great respect for people's personal beliefs. People do not choose what they believe -- they just do. Anyone thinking that there is such a thing as a willful act of believing cannot possibly be sincere or take their own beliefs seriously. I don't argue with friends of mine who believe; not unless their beliefs lead to irreparable damage to themselves or society around them.

What people believe is their personal matter and the same idea or notion manifests itself differently in different people. Some people meditate, some pray, some go to a psychiatrist. How people keep their balance and maintain mental well-being is a matter of their personal preference.

But what frightens me is the tendency in later decades of once again coupling religion with politics and using it as a weapon to enlist the feeble of mind. I must say that I am particularly appalled by the way the conservatives have used religion to incite conflict and enlist hordes of feckless idiots to further their political agendas in the US. It saddens me greatly that what the founding fathers did to separate state and religion, knowing full well how easily religion can be abused, has been defiled by irresponsible, dishonest and, as recent history has shown, morally corrupt, and incompetent leaders.

I think it is about time we addressed religion again in the west before things are allowed to regress to a point where the mess will be too costly to mop up.

Healthcare

2009-08-06T05:28:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago I ran some numbers to compare income and tax levels in the US versus the scandinavian countries. Since the scandinavian countries top out most world-wide statistics on quality of life and because they have a public health care system.

What I found might surprise you.

In order to have roughly the same amount of buying power after taxes, insurance, living costs etc. Americans living in urban parts of the US need to make at least twice the amount of money scandinavians need.

Also note that this is "if all goes well". If you develop a health issue in the US, you are at the mercy of your insurance company and then the comparison breaks down completely. If you are very lucky you can get back to work and just have a slight increase in the cost of living due to higher premiums. If you are really unlucky you end up uninsurable and your health problem persists or returns and you find yourself in a downward spiral heading for poverty.

At which point you are screwed bigtime.

In scandinavia the state takes care of you. But if you want, you can still supplement what you are given by the state with a private option. You won't get any tax rebates, but then again, while the taxes might seem high, the total cost of living is a lot lower because you do not have to pay exorbitant insurance premiums.

Of course the quality of living in Scandinavia is vastly higher than in the US. Ask any US expat in either Norway, Sweden or Denmark.

Rule of law.

2009-08-06T05:00:00.001-07:00

It wasn't like the criminal acts of the previous administration came as a huge surprise. What I find so astonishing is that now, in the face of hard evidence that the former president and vice president violated the constitution repeatedly, nothing seems to be happening to those responsible. Ultimately Mr Bush and Mr Cheney.

They provably undermined the constitution they took an oath to uphold and they will walk away from this without any due process or adequate punishment. Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary citizens will land in jail this year for relatively minor offenses -- adding to the already obscenely inflated prison population of the US.

The contrast is amazing. On one hand you can get away with multiple counts of high treason and murder and on the other hand you can get thrown in jail for a minor infraction.

The rule of law should mean that the law is applied equally. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I think it is the responsibility of the current administration to bring George Bush and Dick Cheney to justice. I certainly understand the pragmatism of looking the other way -- it would be extremely unpleasant to put a former president in jail -- or worse. Unpleasant, but necessary.

By doing nothing means that the United States is a fake in every way. It is not a real democracy and it does not have a real constitution, it does not honor its agreements with other countries and its laws only apply selectively.

Obama, you have to make sure that the criminal acts of the previous administration are prosecuted. These crimes are too great for you to sweep them under the rug. Please see to it that you are not remembered as the president who let some of the worst criminals in the history of the United States off because you did not have what it takes to uphold the rule of law.

Just another day in the free world.

2009-04-17T11:50:00.000-07:00

Keeping fear alive.

2009-04-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

Nothing like keeping the population in a state of fear to make them more compliant.

Careful with those values.

2009-04-08T08:26:00.000-07:00

If you want to gauge the decency and morality of people, keep a close eye on them when dealing with an enemy that has been totally and utterly defeated.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a despotic madman. There is no question about that. In the end he had his trial, was found guilty and had to pay the price. All fine with me.

What bothers me is that although it is really easy to judge Saddam as a criminal and a morally bankrupt person, I don't think that this should make it OK for "us" to act in an undignified manner. To effectively lower ourselves to the level of those we despise.

Today I stumbled across an article about the South Park creators being presented with an autographed picture of Saddam Hussein. Apparently, Saddam was forced to repeatedly watch an episode of South Park in which he is portrayed as the gay boyfriend of satan.

Yeah, I watched the episode and I enjoyed it. It was funny. But as much as I think Saddam was a brutal, murderous, criminal deserving of his ultimate fate, and as much as I found the episode funny, I found it very disturbing that it should be okay to torture the prisoner in this manner.

This is not how we treat our prisoners. We are supposed to be better than this. A lot better. This is the sort of nonsense that validates any hatred our enemies feel towards us.

For those who only care about "winning": this is the sort of base behavior that detracts from victory. The sort of behavior that brings us closer to those we despise for their uncivilized behavior and hollows out victories and reduces them moral embarassments. It is the sort of thing that detracts from the sacrifices made by serious people.

As much as I enjoy South Park: I think Matt and Trey should be be deeply ashamed of themselves for taking pleasure in someone else's suffering. They should be ashamed of expressing, not only consent, but a generous measure of joy in knowing that their work was used in this manner.

What sort of dickless, unprincipled weaklings take joy in the humiliation of a beaten enemy.

Careful what you believe in.

2009-04-04T07:26:00.000-07:00

When watching this video question pops up in my mind: why is it that many religious people are so spineless when it comes to questioning the morality of what their canon preaches?

In some ways, christianity has a militant structure. The most important principle is obedience. Not love, not doing unto others, not tolerance -- obedience. In fact, the ten commandments start off by stating that you are not allowed to even think about following other gods. (Which is a curious thing to say if you claim to be the only god in existence. Then again, would you attribute any credibility to some guy with no sense of direction who claims to have spoken to God and would like to share some notes with you? Perhaps a few thousand years ago)

You do as you are told. Unquestioningly. If God orders you to commit such unspeakable crimes as slitting your offspring's throat, you are supposed to comply. And compliance is hailed as virtuous -- as the right thing to do.

The inclusion of this story in the christian canon can only mean that a significant number of people (or a number of significant people) think this is illustrative of what being a good christian means. It is disturbing to ponder that this sort of utter moral perversity is served up in churches with a straight face. One has to wonder how ministers and priests manage to distance themselves from such vile and base atrocities.

Fortunately, since christianity cannot be trusted to provide a modicum of morality, we have secular values that represent at least a minimum of decency. The difference between the militant dogmatism of the church and the military itself is that the military does not absolve you from your responsibility. In the military you are responsible for your own actions and if you have reason to believe that your commanders are in the wrong, you are not only required to not follow orders, but you are obliged to remove your commanders from their duties. By force if needed.

It is telling that in the secular world, one values morality and decency higher than in the christian world.

It is also telling that the new testament largely seems to be some sort of apology for the hard-line tyranny propagated by the old testament, yet no church of note seems to have seen it as much of a priority to purge the blood-thirsty, petty, unforgiving and morally objectionable god of the old testament from their canon.

He is most likely going to get away with it.

2009-01-17T19:36:00.000-08:00

What we have become.

2009-01-11T05:14:00.000-08:00

Following the BART shooting, I've seen a lot of people ask why none of the civilian bystanders intervened.

To me it would have been a big surprise if someone had intervened.

If there is one thing that we have been taught over the past 8 years, it is that you need to fear anyone in uniform. If you so much as speak in a firm tone of voice to them, pointing out that they are in the wrong, you risk much unpleasantness -- from being physically subdued to, well, getting shot. The message that they can and will do as they please, has been so effectively driven home that the threshold for approaching them has become much higher.

By now, people also understand that there is a certain asymmetry to these situations. If you put your hand on a police officer, there will be dire consequences. If a police officer steps out of line and abuses his or her power, a proper disciplinary response of an appropriate magnitude generally does not seem to occur.

Not unless there is massive public outcry, serious injury, death or significant investment in legal muscle.

Injecting yourself into a tense situation with armed police would amount to stupidity on a scale where you are very actively competing for a Darwin Award. This is more true now than it has been in a long time.

And imagine what would have happened if the civilians on the train had managed some sort of concerted effort to stop what was happening. It would most likely have resulted in a phenomenal number of deaths and it would only have made it easier for the police to justify shooting unarmed civilians.

And besides, why should the bystanders have intervened? If you look at the videos: up until the moment when the shot was fired, nothing out of the ordinary was taking place. Some men were being detained, albeit brutally so, but that is normal these days. It is the norm accepted by society. There was nothing, nothing, out of the ordinary about the situation. The bystanders had no way of knowing that one of the police officers was about to execute one of the men being detained.

The bystanders did not intervene exactly because we, as a society, do not want them to. We accept that the police are held to a lower standard when it comes to being punished for their wrongdoing. We accept that they are allowed to use excessive force. We accept that if you do intervene, then force may be directed at you. We accept that they are armed. We accept that they can ruin our lives on a whim and terrorize us for no good reason.

We must have accepted all these things because we did have a choice. It's a democracy. It says so right there in the CIA world factbook -- it says that the US has a "strong democratic tradition". If we didn't want this, we would have made sure we chose leaders who would address these issues. But we didn't.

In this we are all bystanders and we all did nothing and we are all guilty of doing nothing.

Instruction manual for Life.

2009-01-10T14:52:00.000-08:00

Religion and politics.

2009-01-10T06:04:00.000-08:00

In the past months I have been reading up on various religious groups that are active within the US -- what they believe in, how membership in a particular religion affects their approach to life and the world around them etc. My initial goal was to learn more about where politics and religion intersect and how one influences the other.

Trying to keep an objective mind when reading about prominent religions in the US isn't easy. Engaging in any sort of meaningful debate is even harder. The world often views the middle east as the melting pot for aggressive manifestations of faith, but it is hard to ignore that there are often more frightening manifestations of the same in the US.

The types of religious directions I have been reading about almost always contain a very strong self-defense mechanism wherein even posing questions can be seen as a transgression. It is hard to ask critical and important questions without being accused of hate speech -- which does look a bit odd since what you often end up being on the receiving end of is a mixture of hatred and fear being directed towards you should you attempt to engage in debate and ask difficult questions.

This, of course, does color what you read. When trying to understand a debated topic, you need to ensure that you consume a balanced diet of writings from both sides.

For instance, during the election I tried to follow news sources across the political spectrum to see if I was able to separate spin from fact. (Unfortunately, not all news sources are as easily available online). It isn't always an easy thing to do -- especially when your own opinions seem to align with one side or the other. We tend to trust those who confirm our biases and distrust sources propagating opposing views. Of course, being aware of this and constantly asking yourself what your bias is helps, but it is easy to fool yourself.

Even worse, news media make a living entertaining us -- not necessarily informing us. At the end of the day, revenue is what really matters. News media aren't doing what they do out of kindness and concern for their fellow man. Their task is to dumb things down and present us with easily digestible tidbits of information that do not necessarily represent reality with any degree of accuracy. Add to that political bias and political manipulation of the media, and you are faced with the task of dissecting what effectively becomes propaganda disguised as entertainment disguised as reporting.

I spent a lot of time trying to separate noise from signal, separating exaggerations and outright lies from truth, and to ensure that whenever I read about something I try to find what the opposing side has to say in the matter. And if possible, attempt to analyze my own bias, and how it affects my judgement of what I read.

This is hard for politics.

It is even harder for religion.

I got a bit sidetracked from my original goal of reading up about the interactions between religion and politics as I spent more time trying to understand how, for instance, the mormon church works. These were necessary detours. But what I have read relevant to this topic is fairly scary. There seems to be a great number of very unhealthy interactions between faith and the way leaders are chosen, empowered and enabled. It would appear that any aspirations of the founding fathers to keep church and state separate have failed.

This amounts to a very fundamental failure of the US to uphold some of the core values on which it was founded.

This not only constitutes a threat to democracy, but it also ends up being the enemy of religious freedom.

Bush wants history to see him as a liberator of millions

2008-11-28T17:16:00.000-08:00

This just in:

"George W. Bush hopes history will see him as a president who liberated millions of Iraqis and Afghans, who worked towards peace and who never sold his soul for political ends."

No Dubya, history won't see you as someone who sold his soul for political ends.

You are not clever enough to be a proper politician.

They will see you as someone who sold his soul so his buddies could redistribute billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into their own pockets. You will probably have oil tankers and tasers named in your honor.

Incompetence.

2008-11-23T01:53:00.000-08:00

You would think that those in charge are in charge precisely because they know what they are doing. Well....no. Not really. Any wonder that society falls apart when we insist on electing incompetents for various offices?

Lack of updates

2008-11-20T11:59:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the lack of updates. I've been working very late these past weeks.

A look back.

2008-11-13T17:41:00.000-08:00

I'd be interested in seeing a followup on this clip. Has the press picked it up yet?

Having played around a bit with what you might call complex financial products, I know a little bit about not fully understanding exactly what factors might have huge impact on your investment. I was lucky. I made more than I lost and I got out when things started happening around the world that didn't look like "business as usual" to me. I got out, not because I knew what I was doing, but because I realized that I didn't.

A lot of people got greedy, they listened to bad financial advisors and bet their savings and lost. (Rule #1: never invest more than you can afford to lose).

If the subprime crisis demonstrated one thing it is that the financial world is complex and that very few people actually understand it very well. In fact, as the first stages of the subprime crisis unfolded, most of the people in the financial industry were embarrassingly noncommital when it came to predicting the consequences. That, or they downplayed it in the hopes that the inevitable could be postponed. Basically most had no idea. They had no idea of whom was exposed to what risk where.

And I don't blame them. Most third-year economy students wouldn't understand the risk structure of investments banks were offering left and right. Let alone the murky trade in crap loans between international banks.

It is important to keep this in mind.

These people are good at working the system. But the vast majority of them do not understand it to a degree where they can see trouble coming, and once the system starts breaking down, the rules change and all of a sudden they have no ground to stand on. One does not need to understand what they do not to infer this.

Be careful who you listen to and try to remember who is full of shit the next time around.

Orson Scott Card; author and intolerant jerk.

2008-11-11T17:33:00.000-08:00

I stumbled across this link about Orson Scott Card's views on gay marriage today. It saddens me deeply that someone who has written at least one book I really admired has such a myopic view of the world. It is one thing that he has an opinion. He is free to think whatever he likes and shout it at the top of his lungs.

What I don't like is that he thinks forcing his opinion on others is acceptable -- by force of law. He thinks the government should deny some people the sort of rights that are deemed essential to those who conform to his idea of humanity.

What if the majority's view of humanity differed?

What if the majority ruled that writers with a rotund head and a receding hairline should not be allowed to teach english? Or should be deemed second class citizens with diminished rights? Yes, it would seem unfair. It would seem unfair to have rights denied you for something you are. An aspect of who you are you yourself did not choose. How if society deemed you an outcast. Unwanted. A person so low they would strip you of rights you take for granted. Rights you should take for granted and which no government should be allowed to take away from you.

It is not OK, Orson. Not even remotely so. Not everyone shares your medieval, intolerant view of those who are not exactly like you. Not everyone believes that the tyranny of the masses should be allowed to terrorize the few.

Does this idea ring a bell?

Perhaps you have forgotten that many of the people originally populating North America fled europe -- to get away from people just like you. To get away from the tyranny of the masses and political leaders that did not approve of their faith. Was your education so shallow, so narrow, so inadequate, so utterly worthless that you do not understand even the most fundamental ideas of equality on which the nation you live in was founded?

No amount of admiration for your books can rid you of the repugnant stench of intolerance your vile words leave behind. May you never have the misfortune of falling victim to the whims of your kind.

This blog.

2008-11-08T11:55:00.000-08:00

When I started this blog the intent was to blog about things that annoy me. To say things that I felt needed saying while not taking things too seriously. The blog name was supposed to reflect this. One does not choose a self-deprecative name for one's blog and then expect everyone to take what you say completely seriously.

That I started blogging exclusively on the election was not something I planned for. It just happened to find myself following the election closely and naturally I ended up blogging whenever I was annoyed with what I saw.

I got a lot of feedback on it during the election. Mostly via email. Most of the feedback was encouraging -- some of it wasn't. Don't get me wrong: the fact that people disagree with what I express does not bother me. Debate is important. I would much rather have a heated debate with someone fiercely disagreeing with my views rather than having feebleminded, dogmatic morons agree with me.

What bothered me was the dogmatic, un-thinking respondents. Those incapable of independent observation, analysis, and conclusion.

Now that the election is over there is a number of things I might want to blog about. For one, I will be keeping a close eye on what the upcoming Obama administration is going to do. Early indicators suggest that Obama will innovate in the way he is going to communicate with the people and that his government may be a more open and transparent one than we have seen before. And when I say "before" I am not just referring to the last 8 years, but in all of american history. I hope I am right.

There are other things I would like to explore a bit more in this blog. I have an interest in religion and how religion seems to have made a comeback as a threat to civilization. Be it radicalized islam or fundamentalist christianity. The flavor doesn't really matter all that much when the intensity of emotions in extremists so effectively occlude avenues for rational thought. I think we need to start re-thinking how society needs to deal with the current crop of religions (including those that are religions only in name). It is by no means a new idea as the explosive nature of religion has been a problem we've needed to deal with throughout history.

Religion has become a global risk factor and we need to think about its place.

I could blog on energy efficiency, the environment and related themes that occupy my mind, but I feel I am slightly out of touch with these themes since I haven't kept up to date with relevant data for about a year. I am sort of the odd one out on this issue since my main concern is that "the environment" is being used as a punch-line for all sorts of ignorant, grandstanding idiots. We are wasting a lot of money, time and resources on taking the wrong people seriously. Most of them politicians that want to score cheap points in taking popular, yet uninformed positions. This does little to reduce our impact on the environment.

We'll see. In all likelihood this blog is probably not going to stick to just one theme. And expect there to be sarcasm, irony and the occasional dose of humor.

Obama

2008-11-07T16:29:00.000-08:00

I can't say I envy Obama the job of getting the US back on its feet.

In any case, congratulations Obama!

A president for conflict.

2008-10-22T05:46:00.000-07:00

McCain likes to throw his military credentials around. The problem is that, as a soldier, he wasn't really all that good. In fact, we have a very relevant, measurable datapoint that places him at the very bottom of the barrel. Let me repeat that: McCain is judged by the military to be a third rate soldier.

But he happened to be a third rate soldier with powerful friends.

He tries to impress by saying that he was there during the Cuban missile crisis. What he forgets to mention is that he there as a pilot. Not a decision maker. The guy calling the shots was Kennedy and any credit that is due for resolving that situation is due to Kennedy and his administration. McCain had no impact whatsoever on the Cuban missile crisis. None. Zero.

In fact, the last person on earth you want as your commander in chief during a conflict is McCain. You do not want someone known to have a short fuse. You do not want someone who has demonstrated that he can't handle pressure and will act erratically. You do not want someone who calls for time out and then runs off when the going gets tough.

McCain is the wrong guy to handle conflict. He can only create and escalate conflict.

And indeed, McCain is the preferred choice of Americas enemies -- exactly because they depend on a commander in chief that will escalate and act erratically to achieve their goals for them.

Where your tax-money is going.

2008-10-22T01:48:00.000-07:00

Palin has previously expressed that she has no qualms about bending and breaking the rules and that it would be up to the judicial system to determine what she can and cannot do. Act first, then let the courts mop up the mess. Unless challenged, she will exploit her position for her own personal benefit and do so unashamedly.

It is therefore no surprise when story after story surfaces in which she is wasting taxpayer money to live the good life.

Also, it must be every woman's dream to have $150.000 thrown at her by the RNC for lipstick and clothing. Especially in these times of people slipping into foreclosure. Good thing that Sarah Palin is well fed, well housed, elegantly clad and painted to perfection while the rest of the people have to grapple with more mundane problems.

I guess not even applying $150.000 worth of lipstick is going to make this candidacy more palatable.

United States of Dumb

2008-10-21T12:12:00.000-07:00

Give the people bread and circus, and they will be happy to ignore that their very existence is founded on unsustainability. The way we reward people for what they do reflects our priorities and our priorities, in the long run, translate to what tomorrow will be like.

And people wonder why the United States is circling the drain. People wonder why the United States can be at war with Afghanistan and Iraq, yet a preposterously large portion of the people fervently supportive of waging wars abroad cannot even point out the countries the US is at war with on a map.

McScumbag

2008-10-21T09:54:00.000-07:00

Rules are for everyone else.

McCain is feeling the pain of DMCA with regard to "fair use". Apparently some of the mashups that the campaign posted on Youtube were taken down due to alleged copyright infringement. He had access to the same process of getting them back up again as everyone else -- yet he asked for special treatment because clearly, the process is too time-consuming.

Now a reasonable reaction would be to address the issue of how the DMCA is applied frivolously by political means; call for fixing the laws and to ensure that "fair use" is indeed protected under the law to allow "quoting" the works of others. After all, those elected to an office are there to act in our best interest -- not their own.

This is a chance for McCain to highlight a wrong and work to set it right. This is a chance for McCain to show that he is prepared to fix laws that are applied in an unreasonable manner. But what does he do? He thinks he is entitled to special treatment. He underlines the fact that he thinks that he is better than you, more important than you. Rules should not apply to him.

Once the election is over, he will go back to not caring. To catering to special interests.

Perhaps it is not too unexpected. We're talking about a guy who had it easy most of his life. He never had to perform well to get what he wanted. He led a privileged life of mediocrity (well, below mediocre if we take his school record into account, finishing at the very bottom of his class). We're talking about a guy that has more houses, more cars, more employees and servants than he is able to keep track of -- and then he wants us to think that "That One" is the elitist snob.

McCain, you are an elitist scumbag. If you can't even deal with the DMCA without expecting special treatment, what sort of leader are you going to be? It is clear that you think your rights are more important than those of the people you wish to represent.

I find it a bit offensive that you campaign under the slogan "country first" when obviously all your acts project a "McCain first" mentality.

Tax plans drawn to scale.

2008-10-21T07:13:00.001-07:00

Much has been said about tax cuts and of increasing taxes.

What I do not understand is that people who are not themselves in the upper tax brackets would be so upset about the topmost percentage being taxed heavier.

Perhaps it is because they aspire to find themselves at the top one day. The vast majority never will no matter what they do. The reality is that most of you will never be rich. Most of you will never even get close to the upper tax brackets. And should you be so lucky to get there, would it be so bad if you have to pay a little bit more? Is it really that big a burden if you have to give a little bit more back to society? The society that allowed you to be successful in the first place?

Which is more patriotic? Contributing to your country by shouldering a bit more of the tax-burden or letting those less fortunate shoulder the burden? If you are making hundreds of thousands of dollars, does a few thousand dollars really matter that much to you?

Health first, prosperity follows.

2008-10-19T07:41:00.000-07:00

Hans Rosling visualizes data with Gapminder helping us see the correlation between various parameters. One of his conclusions is that the rate of change in prosperity depends on the availability of healthcare.

This begs the question: if healthcare is so important for our prosperity, why is it that in the United States the general opinion seems to be that it should not be a priority for government? Why do we fear socialized healthcare?

What if the US collapses.

2008-10-19T07:26:00.001-07:00

Slides and notes on the collapse of the Soviet Union and how it might differ from a collapse of the United States. Scary stuff, but there are some points that do make you think. Also note the date on the slides.

McCain on the Late Show.

2008-10-19T07:23:00.000-07:00

Colin Powell endorses Obama

2008-10-19T07:04:00.000-07:00

Ignorant and proud of it.

2008-10-09T10:34:00.000-07:00

Mark stein. Ignorant and proud of it.

Warts and all.

2008-10-09T00:43:00.000-07:00

Judging by what I have read, the Abraham Lincoln quote that he wished to be painted "warts and all" was probably wrongly attributed to him. Likewise it is assumed that when Walpole wrote that Cromwell insisted that Sir Peter Lely represent reality when painting him ("I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at all; but remark all these roughnesses, pimples, warts, and everything as you see me, otherwise I will never pay a farthing for it''), that was probably a not an entirely accurate quote either.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting contrast that Fox seem to have gotten their panties in a twist over an un-retouched photograph of Sarah Palin on the cover of Newsweek. How dare they reproduce the portrait of the Alaskan governor just as she is, without the interpretive aid of a Photoshop-wielding artist.

Since it is Fox that are outraged we can put aside any reservations about the Lincoln and Cromwell quotes being fabrications and just pretend them to be historically accurate. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to come up with a witticism on how Palin is being un-vice-presidential for having Fox obsess over her imperfect looks on her behalf.

Rolling Stone on McCain.

2008-10-05T15:36:00.000-07:00

Rolling Stone magazine has an article about John McCain. One would expect Rolling Stone to have a democrat bias so keep that in mind when reading or watching the video. Some of the things said seem to have been confirmed -- others sound plausible, but I your guess is as good as mine.

Undignified McCain

2008-10-05T14:02:00.000-07:00

Take a close look at McCain now, after the VP debate. Does this petty individual seem presidential to you? He knows Palin might have fooled Joe-Drunk-The-Sixpack and possibly appealed to the odd stereotypical hockey-mom -- but even he knows that she failed to live up to even the lowest benchmark of VPdom: Dan Quayle.

So McCain does what his nature dictates. He starts acting like a childish bully. Afraid that his status will drop through the floor if he doesn't punch the "uppity" smart kid on the nose.

Over the next days or weeks he will try to sling as much mud has he possibly can -- in the hope that some of it will stick. I hope Obama won't take the bait. I hope he will not feed the juvenile bullying of McCain by spending any significant time on talking back to him. And I sure as hell don't hope Obama will stoop to McCain's level and respond with the same sort of unworthy ads and non-rethoric.

Political debate, Fox style.

2008-10-04T09:08:00.000-07:00

This is the level at which political debate takes place in the US. This is the sort of raw sewage the public is fed without any warnings along the lines of "Warning: may cause political blindness".

VP Debate

2008-10-03T01:17:00.000-07:00

Managed to see just the start of the Debate on YouTube.com. First impression of the first part: as predicted: all form and very little substance from Palin. She plays the hockey-mom card and tries to turn her inexperience and lack of knowledge into a positive. Very obvious that she was mostly regurgitating talking points given to her.

But to her credit: there was a fluidity to her delivery. Most voters have no real idea about the issues so they judge by the delivery. They look at the packaging, not the contents.

Biden seemed more pleasant and toned down than on the campaign trail.

Who broke the economy?

2008-10-02T12:48:00.000-07:00

factcheck.org has an article that attempts to shed some light on who broke the economy. The last comment is a good summary:

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

The rest of the article can be found here.

The VP Debate

2008-10-01T01:55:00.000-07:00

This is probably going to be a fairly weird debate. On one hand you have Biden, with considerable political experience. On the other hand you have Palin, with close to no grasp even on what the campaign she represents stands for. It is going to be a substance versus form debate and the ground rules have already been set: this is going to be a strictly no-contact fight. (A deal that was struck for McCain to agree on turning up for his debate at all).

Right now, Palin is in hiding from the press, cramming for the debate. Nose deep in the McCain Big Book Of One-Liners. They must be pretty desperate at this point trying to make sure that at the very least she knows what positions she is supposed to take on various issues.

I'm not sure what Biden will be doing to prepare. In this debate, facts and figures won't matter as much as demeanor and folksiness. It will be hard for Biden to figure out how to approach this. If he comes off as condescending or too aggressive, he will lose the debate in popular opinion. And it will be exceedingly hard to not come off as condescending when debating The Master of the Non-Answer from Alaska.

Palin has given some terrible interviews of late where one of her answers was even repeated almost verbatim in a SNL skit with Tina Fey playing Palin. No need to even bother writing gibberish lines when Palin is so capable of producing lines that can just be recycled for comic effect. But it would be dangerous for Biden to under-estimate Palin's ability to charm her way out of a tight spot.

In the end, I think the voters are the big losers. Presidential candidates and VP candidates in an american election are more afraid of actual face to face debate than a murder suspect is of taking the stand on his or her own trial. Their marketing dollar can't help them there -- and the marketing dollar is what decides a presidential campaign. Selling the voters a president or a VP is no different from selling consumers corbonated sugary water. Same basic principles. It is first and foremost a branding exercise.

Badly understood consequences.

2008-09-30T00:42:00.000-07:00

People are celebrating that the bailout didn't get voted through. Which is a bit odd since no bailout is actually costing considerably more than a bailout would.

$700bn to stabilize a failing economy is, to be quite frank, a bargain. This is a case of people kissing large chunks of their savings, investments and pensions goodbye to save a few bucks on taxes. In fact, about one trillion just evaporated from the market yesterday. Within that trillion are financial instruments owned by regular people. The middle class. This affects everyone.

And look around you. The Chinese, who have up until now been so keen to lend the US money to keep the wheels of the economy well-oiled (so they can sell you the consumer crap you love so much), are retreating in fear. This will only get worse.

The real tragedy here is that many of those who wanted to vote for the "bailout" didn't dare to do so for fear of losing their seat. Staying in office is actually more important to them than stabilizing the economy.

No doubt McCain will take credit for the failed attempt to stabilize the economy. The idiot voters will see him as a hero, and by the time the american people have figured out that it would have been considerably cheaper to stabilize the markets, they are stuck another 4 years with a bumbling idiot for president. Not to mention an unqualified religious nutcase for VP that even most republicans find an embarassment.

These are dangerous times. The recession just got a lot worse. More banks will fail and the US took another step towards idiocracy.

Not fit for consumption.

2008-09-28T15:07:00.001-07:00

What does it tell you when a VP candidate is so out of touch that the campaign cannot risk having the VP candidate talk to the press? What does it tell you when the campaign has to rig debates in order to turn up at all?

Why do they even bother having Palin turn up for a mockery of a debate? Why not just issue a press release and not insult the voter further. It was bad enough that McCain showed a complete lack of judgement in picking her.

The kind of judgement the GOP thinks is "good enough" for you. The voter.

Sarah Palin makes George Bush look like a fucking bookworm.

2008-09-28T02:46:00.000-07:00

I think it is time we showed Palin the respect she deserves. Which is to say, we should not be afraid to state outright that this woman is an idiot. The really fun part here is that McCain's choice of Palin shows us what he thinks of the voters: he thinks you are idiots too.

Here's why McCain doesn't want Palin to talk to the press anymore:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

Absolute gibberish. How on earth can a grown person make such nonsensical statements on national TV? I mean, she is not even good at pretending she knows what she is talking about.

Sarah Palin makes George Bush look like a fucking bookworm.

Offshore drilling is completely irrelevant.

2008-09-28T02:09:00.001-07:00

The thing about offshore drilling is that it will be too little too late. At the pump it would not even mean fractional cents to the dollar. To the consumer, it makes absolutely no difference.

So why is this even a big issue during the election? Why is McCain making such a big fuss about this? The numbers are pretty clear: it isn't important at all. In fact, it is so unimportant it is remarkable that it would even come up in discussion during an election where time and bandwith is at a premium.

McCain is spending 90% of his time talking about less than 1% of the budget.

2008-09-28T01:53:00.000-07:00

You keep hearing a lot about pork barrel spending or earmarks. And you'd be inclined to think that this is something quite significant given that McCain and Palin keep harping on about it.

In fact "earmarks" make up less than half a percent of the budget. Which means that McCain is spending 90% of his time talking about less than 1% of the budget.

Deja vu

2008-09-26T13:29:00.000-07:00

You have seen this before, right. Of course you have. For reference I'll provide the video here:

Of course, with some prepping, even the dumbest of the dumb can form coherent sentences:

The economy ate my homework.

2008-09-26T12:18:00.000-07:00

It is indeed never too late to react impulsively and childishly to something that happened over a week ago. Like a kid trying to wriggle his way out of taking an important test, John McCain all of a sudden found that he was urgently needed in Washington. As if the republicans had somehow shone a huge skylight with the silouette of an elephant on it at the sky to summon him.

After spending the last six months out of circulation on the Doubletalk Express, serving up lame jokes and political one-liners, there was no time to lose: he had to get back to Washington ASAP.

No time for trivial stuff such as, oh, I don't know, participating in The Debate and such.

The TV pundits seem to be very obsessed with blinking. Apparently McCain blinked and Obama didn't. Seems the dumb kid in class will have to turn up for his test after all. Prepared or not.

McCain is too frail for the job.

2008-09-26T00:01:00.000-07:00

It is frightening that McCain wants to skip the debate because of the financial crisis. The election is about the next four years. That's a long time. We need to understand which candidate is best equipped to handle the challenges. These are not times where you vote for a person -- these are times where you vote for reason.

The financial crisis is best handled by those who have not been galavanting around the country, spewing forth one-liners meant to elicit applause from audiences that don't know they are being short-changed in the election process.

Political debate is a prerequisite for democracy. If candidates do not confront each other in debate, we cannot possibly have any basis for comparison. Democracy just becomes a show-piece. Something we talk a lot about, but which we don't actually implement.

Besides, this is the ultimate test. This is our chance to see the candidates under pressure. And already McCain wants to throw in the towel. This emphasizes our greatest fear: John McCain is too frail to become president. He can't handle the pressure. And we really, really do not want that religious nutjob hockey-mom running the place. Think radical moslems are bad? How about radical christians with nukes and a firm belief that we live in the endtimes.

Executive Summary (no pun intended)

2008-09-25T13:14:00.000-07:00

I watched the long, tedious marketing speech made by George Bush to sell the bailout. Let me condense his message down to one sentence:

"Give me $700.000.000.0000 and don't ask any questions"

There, now you can go back to your apathy -- assured that you have not missed anything.

An uneven fight.

2008-09-25T09:55:00.000-07:00

In Russia, the ruthless yet cunning man ended up on top by elbowing everyone else in the face -- in the US an assortment of lawyers made sure the idiot son of a plutocrat one-term president was handed the top job.

Not that it was all that challenging given that half the american population will happily saw off the branch they are sitting on whilst clutching their bibles and their guns; seriously believing it is the will of God.

It is said that we get the leaders we deserve. One wonders what collective sin would warrant punishment as severe as this: ending up with this fool, not one term, but two. Perhaps for the sin of being embarrasingly ignorant and backward?

There are people who believe that dinosaur and man co-existed only a few thousand years ago. Who believe in witches and that God wants them to go bomb the shit out of brown people half way around the world. People who hold important positions in government. State and federal. I shit you not. The US has one foot in the dark, deep, middle ages.

Perhaps what this situation needs is a complete financial collapse. Perhaps people will see more clearly when the US becomes a former superpower. Perhaps, when it is too late for any form of recovery, will the people see that we are way beyond the point where we can have the luxury of choosing a president based on issues like stance on abortion.

Abortions become a completely academic issue when you have no place to live, nothing to eat and no means for sending your kids off to college. It becomes an academic issue when countries like India start outsourcing their menial jobs to the US.

Yes, the debate on abortion is a serious one, but it is not as serious as the collapse of the entire economic system. But by all means, if you want the US to become the third world country it is so eagerly trying to become, do carry on.

Imagine the glee with which Osama bin Laden, if he is even alive, observes. Having scared the ignorant masses of the US into a huddle and made them select Bush -- who then has run the US aground and is about to turn the US into the Soviet Union. Food for thought: after the bailout, the US will have more government ownership of businesses than is the case in Russia.

The most destructive power in any war is a terrible leader. Bush is a terrible leader. McCain is just more of the same.

Meanwhile the world is looking to the EU, and to Russia, and to China, and to Brazil.

Last chance, America. Last chance. In a bit over 40 days you decide if America survives or becomes irrelevant.

Reforming Washington

2008-09-24T12:20:00.000-07:00

An appeal: Get a fucking grip, Obama.

2008-09-23T11:57:00.000-07:00

I've started to follow various fact-checking websites -- among them factcheck.org. Some with a clear political agenda and some which I hope are as non-partisan and independent as they advertise. It worries me that Obama seems to engage in much the same tactics of half-truths and distortions in his ads as the McCain campaign. Admittedly these distortions are not (yet) of the same magnitude as the outright lies that McCain tries to propagate, but nonetheless, they are distorions and inaccuracies.

Obama, what are you doing? What the hell is wrong with you?

I understand that winning the election is important. The US and the world cannot take four more years of the sort of inept leadership we've seen the past 8 years. That much is clear to everyone.

Every reasonably intelligent person who bothers to read up on voting records, recent history and can judge for themselves understand that McCain and Palin are The Wrong Stuff. They understand how McCain is flip-flopping too fast for cameras to catch and that he is too old and too ignorant. They understand that Palin is a religious nut who believes she is on a mission from God and can't wait for the end of the world to come about.

By stooping to the levels of the McCain/Palin you are risking too much.

Have some respect for the voter. Keep this campaign about the issues. Make sure everything your ads say is the truth. Sort of the truth does not cut it.

Out of touch

2008-09-23T11:47:00.000-07:00

There has been much talk about no child being left behind. Perhaps we need to institute a program where politicians need to pass a test before they are able to run for office. If they fail, they have to attend one year of school before the are eligible again.

Perhaps then we would not have to endure the embarassment of having a presidential candidate who does not know where Spain is. Or who is head of state in Spain. Or whether Spain is an enemy of the United States of America or not.

Knowing these things tends to matter when you are responsible for tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and the largest stockpile of biological and chemical weapons in the world.

Can we risk a US president who does not know whether to nuke or to embrace Spain?

Fundamentally dishonest.

2008-09-21T09:59:00.000-07:00

If by "the fundamentals of the US economy" we mean the workforce, and if said workforce is the best and most productive in the world, how come so many jobs are outsourced either directly or indirectly to places like China?

Why is it that everything, including the lapel pins of the republicans, is made in China?

I call bullshit. McCain is a bumbling idiot who has no idea why the economy has tanked, has no idea how it can be fixed and is now lying to the american to cover up his embarrassing lack of knowledge.

McCain's computer illiteracy.

2008-09-19T11:46:00.000-07:00

McCain has had to endure much ridicule for his computer illiteracy. The official line is that using a keyboard is difficult for him due to injuries sustained during the vietnam war. The consistency with which his problems have been reported over the years makes it seem implausible that this is just a lie. He is reported to have difficulties tying his shoelaces and combing his hair for the same reason. Let's just assume it is true.

On one hand, it is tempting to chastise the Obama campaign for making a point of McCain's computer illiteracy. Indeed, hey should not make fun of McCain's handicaps.

On the other hand, I know people with physical handicaps far more severe than those of McCain who are not only computer literate, but work with computers on a daily basis. These handicaps range from being paralyzed from the neck down, having severe arthritis (from a relatively young age) and blindness. Yes, I know a blind programmer and I have encountered several over the Internet over the last decade. Blindness and paralysis are not reasons for not using a computer.

If McCain has the strength to shake the hands of thousands of people every day, he has the strength to operate one of the gazillion input devices available on the market today for those with special needs.

This guy isn't severely physically handicapped.

McCain is computer illiterate because he can't be bothered to learn. Being privileged he has never had to learn either. If anything, this is an illustration of what sort of people we elect to be our leaders: people who are so far removed from the rest of us that even the most mundane things are completely alien to them.

Given that computers, the internet and technology in general is aggressively transforming society, the way we interact, and the rate at which new memes are generated, we cannot risk electing someone who does not live in that world.

Wow

2008-09-17T15:25:00.000-07:00

This is the first ad I have seen during this election that actually doesn't try to appeal to our pettiness and obsession with stupid mudslinging.

Thanks, Obama.

Voter suppression. The under-reported story.

2008-09-17T02:24:00.000-07:00

I think the US election needs more foreign observers to ensure that this election proceeds without the sort of anti-democratic tactics we usually associate with countries like Zimbabwe and dictatorships that hold mock elections.

The voter "caging" efforts have been severely under-reported by the press in the US, so one cannot rely on the press to properly ensure that proper democratic process may take place.

However, CNN did run this piece about the Obama team filing a suit over alleged voter suppression plan.

If we had an adequate presence of international observers, the violations of voter rights may get a lot of coverage in the foreign media. And one would hope that some of this reporting trickled back into the domestic media coverage.

It's the issues, stupid.

2008-09-17T01:15:00.000-07:00

As this election moves forward, I have yet to see proper debate. Rather than the candidates burning through obscene amounts of money touring the country and slinging mud at each other, I would really have liked the whole run-up to the election to be a series of debates. I would have liked to see the candidates battle it out verbally in debates where they are forced to keep it about the issues.

In these times where many are struggling to keep the roof over their head; because of storms sweeping the coasts or the storms on Wall Street; I think it is obscene that the candidates spend their time making speeches and slinging mud at each other. Rather than giving the voters a chance to understand what the candidates plan to do, if elected, the voters are subject to marketing.

The most important presidency in the world is decided by how successful the respective candidates marketing campaigns are.

The CIA World Factbook states that the United States have a "strong democratic tradition". How can thee be democracy when there is no debate? How can there be democracy when the voters are not invited to understand the issues and the proposed solutions?

Fiscal conservative

2008-09-15T13:03:00.000-07:00

If you wrestle a pig, lipstick or no lipstick, you both get dirty. But the pig might like it.

2008-09-15T12:37:00.000-07:00

If you wrestle a pig, lipstick or no lipstick, you both get dirty. But the pig might like it.

Barack Obama needs to stop playing into the hands of the McCain campaign. Every moment spent commenting on the childish antics of McCain, and his loose cannon running mate, Palin, is a moment that the press will seize upon and use to define the "debate".

The press only cares about eyeballs. The only real numbers they are interested in are not the ones that decide whether people will be warm and fed 8 years from now, but the ones that will decide where their next handful of silver coins will come from. The press is not going to protect the democracy, Mr Obama. Stop expecting them to grow a spine and act responsibly; they won't.

Stop lending credibility to McCain by even commenting on his contemptous lies. Focus on the issues. Explain in detail how your tax plan would work. Explain why the United States holds the same position in people's minds around the world as did the Soviet Union two decades ago. Explain to people, using small words, why it really, really matters to have the respect of your peers -- whether you are a superpower or a regular joe.

Dumb things down. Be concrete. Explain.

And ignore McCain. Even his conservative brethren are about ready to smack him over the head with a shovel for making such an ass of himself.

Now even Karl Rove is tired of McCain's lying.

2008-09-15T12:13:00.000-07:00

I thought it would be a cold day in hell before I'd hear Karl Rove criticize McCain for campaign ads that contain downright lies. But now it has happened: Karl Rove says McCain is going too far by perpetuating outright lies in campaign ads.

And Karl Rove knows a thing or two about dishonest political advertising.

It's a major wake-up call for McCain when a hardcore neocon like Karl Rove thinks you are going to far.

Unfortunately I couldn't find a Youtube clip that showed him saying that in proper context. I could only find crapped-on clips that had been over-edited. I guess you can find the soundbite yourself.

Government 101 or Advanced Bullshitting? You choose.

2008-09-15T11:17:00.000-07:00

While watching Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin it struck me that most voters would probably think that the interview went rather well. Because Sarah Palin is very good at talking, or to not put too fine a point of it, she is very good at bullshitting.

Some people just have a natural talent for bullshitting and Sarah Palin is one of those people. Give her a tough question and she will, right there and then, find some way to wriggle herself out of it.

This is why she is the governor of Alaska and you are not.

But is the ability to bullshit really a quality we look for in a leader? Do we want someone who can bluff their way out of a tight spot more than we want someone who knows what they are talking about?

Let me give you an example. When Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine, it was quite clear that she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine is. For a moment she seemed completely stunned by the question. An american governor. Running for vice president. And she had no idea of what is meant by The Bush Doctrine -- the single most important principle by which the current administration is governing.

Her first attempt to bluff was a feeble one. She asked for clarification on what Charlie Gibson meant. Anyone who has had any experience interviewing people or who has given an oral exam will tell you that asking for clarification is just about the first and most important trick in the book to bullshit yourself out of this situation.

In the end, Charlie Gibson had to explain to Sarah Palin what the Bush Doctrine is. An embarrassing moment of the interview for all concerned.

Before we go on, let's have a look at the video:

After the interview several pundits said that she did well.

Did well at what?

The average american voter knows little or nothing about the Bush Doctrine. Like Sarah Palin, most people probably have a general impression of what the governing principles of the current administration are -- but they are not able to express precisely what the Bush Doctrine is.

But Sarah Palin is not average people. Or at least she is not supposed to have just an average understanding of how the country is run. She is a governor and she is a vice presidential candidate. It is her job to know these things.

She is running on a ticket that is supposedly for change -- but she has no real understanding of exactly what the status quo is. Then how can she truly have any understanding of what change is needed?

You may admire her for her ability to bullshit her way out of a question that she should have known the answer to. But wouldn't you rather have a leaders that actually know? Leaders who are actually qualified for their jobs so they don't have to lie on their resumes?

Wouldn't you rather havet leaders that understand "Government 101" rather than just "Advanced Bullshitting"?

We might end up with secterian nutcases controlling weapons of mass destruction.

2008-09-15T00:48:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin's Churches and The Third Wave from Bruce Wilson on Vimeo.

You tell me: does this look like the sort of people you would want to put in charge of the US stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? The US has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads -- in addition to the decommissioned ones, which is just politician-speak for "nukes we presently do not count", but which are nonetheless available and can be re-activated on short notice.

The US also has the largest stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.

Now most other nuclear stockpiles are under the control of regimes that are, at least not overtly, influenced by crazy-ass secterian nutcases. It is somewhat embarrassing that the US sees religious zealotry combined with access to weapons of mass destruction as the biggest threat against global security -- yet the US is seriously considering putting a certifiable nutcase one heartbeat away from the controlling the launch codes.

We're piss-scared of a bunch of people living in caves getting their hands on a suitcase bomb or two. We'er so piss-scared of it our whole way of life has changed.

And then we respond by putting a person with craziness of equal magnitude in the White House and give her the launch codes the day McCain kicks the bucket (which is a very real possibility given McCain's long smorgasbord of health problems).

Is that rational behavior?

McCain's questionable health.

2008-09-15T00:41:00.000-07:00

Given the uncertainties of McCain's health status, the nation needs to view Sarah Palin becoming president, or the acting president, a very real possibility. This is a very frightening possibility given that she is so inexperienced she didn't even know what the "Bush Doctrine" was when asked about it in an interview. Unfortunately for the ill informed masses, neither do they. And unfortunately for the voters, Palin was able to bluff her way out of that question. After a few seconds of looking like a deer staring into the headlights.

Anti-Palin rally biggest political rally in Alaska ever?

2008-09-14T08:28:00.000-07:00

It would appear so. According to this blog post an estimated 1400 people turned up to rally against Sarah Palin in Alaska. The blogger claims that this is the biggest political rally ever in the state of Alaska -- which sounds a bit incredible, but I guess someone else could verify this for us.

McCain's submissive body-language.

2008-09-14T06:59:00.000-07:00

It would be interesting to see an analysis of McCain's mannerisms and behaviors in full.

Notice his nervous laugh whenever he delivers a punch-line that is either a misrepresentation or a downright lie. He starts laughing before the audience. His laugh forced and you can see that odd motion of his lower jaw. He projects submissiveness and insecurity in a way that is strikingly similar to how bonobos and chimps display submissiveness.

These are mixed messages. This guy is running for the ultimate alpha male job - yet his mannerisms tell us that he sees himself as a loser. Look at him closely.

He may tolerate being imprisoned or tortured, but this guy has real problems looking people in the eye while giving answers. Notice him on "The View"? Notice how uncomfortable he was?

Iraq schmiraq

2008-09-14T01:16:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin's thoroughly photographed trip to Iraq turns out to be a fake. She apparently didn't venture into Iraq, but rather dropped by the border crossing at Khabari Alawazem. Funny how I've heard it described as her going into a "battle zone".

This shows us a couple of things:

She is very comfortable with outright lying. In this election it is important to build an image of a woman that is something besides an anti-choice, hockey-mom, small-town mayor, who clings to her bible and her gun -- and Sarah Palin thinks fabrication of these narratives is an acceptable way to go about it.
It was massively embarassing when she was said to have "foreign policy" credentials due to her state bordering on Russia. It is becoming even more embarassing that Palin is desperately trying to pad her travel resume to give the impression that she has actually been outside the states on anything other than vacation.

Republicans on republicans.

2008-09-13T05:35:00.000-07:00

If it wasn't obvious before that McCain was solidly in the wrong about putting out those attack ads accusing Obama of being sexist, it ought to be fairly obvious now. O'Reilly is as republican as they get, and even he, who is not beyond empty, irrelevant bickering and name-calling, thinks McCain is being unreasonable.

Wake-up call for McCain.

From around the web.

2008-09-13T05:28:00.000-07:00

From around the web:

Blizzard of Lies, when Paul Krugman opines, you should listen. You may not agree, but you should nevertheless, listen. Or in this case: read.
So Palin is against earmarks, huh? Why not check for yourself?
Are the liberals letting themselves be manipulated?

McCain on lying in his ads.

2008-09-13T05:21:00.000-07:00

Notice how blatantly McCain insists on propagating his lies. He is embarrassed (who wouldn't be) to be called out on the issue, but nevertheless, he insists on spreading falsehoods.

Why do voters put up with this?

Obama on tax.

2008-09-13T03:27:00.000-07:00

From what I gather several independent organizations have analyzed Barack Obama's tax plan and stated that the plan is consistent with what Obama is claiming. In short, we have reason to believe that he is being truthful.

Behold the New World Order!

2008-09-12T12:12:00.000-07:00

The 8 years of Bush in office has already done untold damage to the United States. The economy has tanked, the constitution has been set aside and the world has started turning its back on the americans. From oil-producing nations moving to the Euro as their currency of choice to travellers deciding that there is nothing to see in the US that is worth the unpleasantness of travelling there.

There is a level of paranoia in the US the likes of which has not been seen since the height of the cold war. A population living in fear -- gladly trading in all their freedoms for the promise of security.

And fear of what, exactly? Terrorists? The end of the American Way?

What is the American Way? Is it freedom? If so, the American Way died the day the US Patriot Act was signed into law. It died the day government was allowed to detain, imprison and hold without charge or trial its own citizens in secret prisons. It died the day the government became so afraid of its own citizens that everyone is now treated as a suspected terrorist. It died the day that those enabling the government to commit crimes against its people were given immunity from prosecution. It died the day government unabashedly started to use propaganda of fear to have us view everyone around us with suspicion and fear.

While one may argue that the political system in the US has nothing in common with communism, it is undeniable that everyday life has taken on a flavor that we traditionally associated with the sort of hard-line communist regimes we were raised to fear during the cold war. The Soviet was evil because it spied on its citizens. The Soviet was evil because undesirables would disappear in the night -- to be shipped off to secret gulags. The Soviet was evil because delivering talking points to the mass media would keep the population ignorant and ill informed. The Soviet was evil because it fought wars in places like Afghanistan. The Soviet was evil because it wanted to park weapons of mass destructions right outside the American borders.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

The US is isolating itself behind an iron curtain. It is becoming the big bully the world saw in the Soviet Union decades ago.

This hockey-mom is about to go nuclear.

2008-09-12T05:59:00.000-07:00

It is pant-crappingly scary when some gun-toting, radical christian fundamentalist, former beauty-queen with a dubious political track record and zero foreign policy experience starts to talk about getting into a fight with Russia.

If Vladimir Putin looked into the eyes of George Bush and saw a weak, feckless idiot, what will he see when he looks into the eyes of Palin? A hockey-mom with launch-codes, no foreign policy experience, fanatical beliefs far more excessive than those of Sayyid Qutb and the hubris that makes her think she is even in Putin's league as a head of state?

Put yourself in Putin's place. Apply hawkish republican reasoning to the situation from his point of view. Here you have a foreign super-power talking about armed intervention in your back yard. Under the command from someone who believes she is talking to God. Would you show restraint?

How would you feel if a military superpower, like Russia or China, started showing up in South America? Meddling in conflicts in the back yard of the United States? How would you feel if you knew this person held religious beliefs that we usually associate with less enlightened times.

You would be very uncomfortable. Not only with the interventions in your back yard, but with the highly dangerous unpredictability of someone who is out of touch with reality.

The Russians are scary. But at least they are not threatening with military presence in locations directly on the American mainland borders. Nor are their leaders afflicted by irrational religious madness. Nor are they lightweights. They may lie, deceive and oppress -- but they are competent totalitarians.

Good Will Hunting on Palin

2008-09-11T08:57:00.000-07:00

McCain's POW years are irrelevant

2008-09-10T09:24:00.000-07:00

I wonder why McCain keeps relying on his five years in a Vietnamese shithole as a means to get out of any argument and why nobody has called him on it yet. That story is getting really old.

Yet he keeps banging on about his stint in jail and his military service. He even seems proud of the fact that he was among the worst performing officers in his class.

While having to endure 5 years of imprinsonment as a prisoner of war is a terrible personal tragedy, it is not something that qualifies you to become a president. Or a physics teacher. Or an auto-mechanic.

Are we going to make McCain president based on pitying him? Does he look like he needs pity? This is a man who has all the material wealth he could possibly need available to him. He is wealthy to the degree where he has no firm grasp on how many houses are at his disposal. Meanwhile large numbers of people in the US have lost their homes. To foreclosure and to natural disasters. Meanwhile veterans of war, people who sacrificed their health, their future, their lives, are coming back to the US and finding that Their Guy, McCain, is not taking their side. Either voting against them or not bothering to turn up to vote at all.

The contrast between what one should reasonably expect from McCain and what he enacts is shocking. McCain didn't learn anything from the experience and is now abandoning his own, the veterans, while putting even bigger swaths of the population at risk of having their lives destroyed.

By the same logic that makes McCain's imprisonment in Vietnam a qualification for the presidency, should we expect the future leader of Afhanistan, Pakistan or Iraq to come from one of the many military prisons operated by the US? How would you look upon a candidate that served 5 years in Guantanamo running for president in Afghanistan. Especially one that was only too ready to let others suffer through the same hardships.

Would you view years in a rathole like Guantanamo as an experience that in itself qualifies someone for presidency?

Of course not.

Fact of the matter is that McCain's stint in jail is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is that it didn't even do anything about his character. McCain emerged from prison, character flaws intact and not having learnt anything.

Not much of a celebrity.

2008-09-10T09:12:00.000-07:00

A few weeks back the republicans, feeling unloved by the media, accused Obama of being a celebrity. Well, how the fuck is being a well known public figure a bad thing when you are running for president? Especially if you are a politician. I thought the republicans said that Obama was an "unknown"? Then they say he is too well known.

If Obama was such a big celebrity, you'd expect him to do better in interviews. McCain does a lot better in interviews than Obama. At least from what I have seen. Of course, McCain has the advantage of having positions that are one-liners. Simple shit he made up on the plane on his way to the rally -- and not always cleared with his campaign management.

Meanwhile, Obama actually tries to formulate meaningful answers, and thus comes across as more hesitant. In a country where the majority of the population are below most third world countries in education and world knowledge, that is a handicap.

Obama, work on those one-liners. You are over-estimating your voters.

"May we borrow a Soyuz capsule, please, Mr Putin, Sir?

2008-09-08T13:12:00.000-07:00

The sad thing about Bush pissing away trillions of dollars bombing the shit out of brown people on the other side of the globe, is that his successor will have to be really nice to Putin and his buddies to hitch a lift to the ISS on the Soyuz capsule. Coz' NASA sure as shit ain't getting the budget to pimp the space shuttles or get the new Orion/Ares vehicle on line.

Well, that and the fact that if the shitter breaks again, they'll have to just hold it in until NASA can send up a plumber in 2014.

This is your country on GOP.

2008-09-07T07:24:00.000-07:00

Republican values

2008-09-06T17:29:00.000-07:00

I wonder if Palin practiced safe sex when she fucked Brad Hanson. Probably not. After all, she irresponsibly took no precautions not to get knocked up in her old age.

And her god rewarded her with a retarded offspring. And a teen pregnancy to boot.

You can keep your republican values, Palin. I suggest you take your values and go hide out with people who share your values. Like that spineless Saudi everyone is looking for in caves on the Afghan-Paki border.

September!?

2008-09-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

Shit, september already? It was june just a couple of days ago.

How the fuck did that happen?

Shaking things up?

2008-09-02T23:44:00.000-07:00

As irrelevant as we would wish people's personal tragedies are, the complete lack of decency of that Palin-woman is something the voters need to consider. Especially given the overwhelming risk that McCain, although running only for a single term lame-duck presidency, has a significant risk of kicking the bucket early -- thus leaving that crazy woman in charge of the whole operation.

The US could end up with one of the craziest least morally fit presidents ever.

Just look at Palin's family. This woman is so delusional that she is unable to admit that her family's deep dysfuntion is the result of her twisted morality. She is:

Anti-family planning, even for married couples
She despises single mothers and teens who have gotten themselves knocked up
She believes in abstinence-only
She does not believe in sexual education
She is militantly anti-choice
She preaches family values, yet foisted her kids on other members of her family to raise while she was off doing more glamorous things.
Irresponsibly got knocked up herself at an advanced age, resulting in an unwanted special needs child.

With republicans being so obsessed with morality and family values, it would seem odd to choose someone to represent them who so clearly illustrates how these positions lead to tragedy.

That Palin-woman is just The Wrong Stuff through and through.

No, the other Palin

2008-09-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

Casual conversation at the urinals:

- Palin? McCain's running mate? But...he's british!

- No you stupid cunt, the other Palin. The white trash, hypocrite, Miss Moose from Alaska, Palin.

- Oh. Oh I see. Oh, dear, I see...

See good in bad, I do

2008-08-30T09:04:00.001-07:00

If McCain wins the presidential election, Michael Stipe will leave the US.

Best reason yet for voting McCain/Palin.

This is going to be a tough one.

Questionable judgement

2008-08-30T08:40:00.000-07:00

So McCain has chosen a veep-creep he has met only once before. Palin is even under investigation for the dubious firing of the alaskan public safety commisioner. This is getting off to a great start in proper GOP neocon style.

Is McCain high on something or should I attribute this lapse in judgement to his utter lack of intellectual fortitude?

Perhaps their reasoning is that they might snap up some votes from the pissed-off-hausfrau demographic; those who wanted to see that psychotic Clinton-woman in the Oval office.

Well, at least the former Miss Moose seems to be a qualified spokesmodel. Only fitting since the current guy is a former cheerleader and McCain is likely to kick the bucket due to old age before the end if a lame-duck, single term presidency -- should he make president.

America is so fucked.

I can has democracy?

2008-08-29T07:30:00.000-07:00

Elections make me lose faith in humanity. Not so much because I think the politicians are dumb, but because they are dragged down to the level of the imbecile voters whose brains awake momentarily only when Paris Hilton is on TV.

Paris Hilton. The main character in a porn movie that made sex look awfully dull.

Putting the "mental" in "environmental".

2008-08-29T07:20:00.000-07:00

Environmentalists on TV again. In their designer clothes and with iPhones. Foaming at the mouth and prattling on about how we need to act responsibly.

Monkey see, monkey do

2008-08-29T02:51:00.000-07:00

So the Bushbaby has been bullying the entire world around for 8 years whilst crashing the US economy. And while Putin is now mainly the puppeteer behind Medvedev, he has observed and learnt: the world is regressing into fascism, there is no responsible adult at the helm of the sinking ship that is the US and people are now so frightened that they'll accept any infringement on democracy and basic freedoms.

Welcome to the cold war rematch.