Recently in Politics Category

I've been keeping quiet about the whole financial melt-down and trillion dollar bailout thing. I just wanted to wait until I felt I had a decent amount of information before spouting off and saying something stupid.

Now the time has come. I will say something marginally informed, yet still stupid.

I don't believe these failing corporations should be bailed out at all. It's not the duty of each and every American taxpayer to reach into his or her back pocket and shell out several thousand dollars to save a business just because that business happens to be huge. Taxpayers should not have to pay for the collective stupidity of a few hundred (or maybe even thousand) greedy idiots who made bad decisions while trying to turn their billions of dollars worth of assets into even more billions of dollars worth of assets.

By "bailing out" corporations that made bad business decisions, the government provides positive re-enforcement for making bad business decisions! That is, the government will only be encouraging risky corporate behavior and general irresponsibility. Why should any company make anything other than high risk decisions, knowing full well that in the event of failure the government will reward them with billions of dollars?

Here is my counter proposal:

Let these companies fail. And fail completely. Liquidate their assets and pay off their creditors as best as possible. Let every single employee from the mightiest CEO to the poor schmuck who cleans the toilets find themselves out of work.

There is already several mechanisms in place to protect those who could be harmed. The aforementioned employees, for example, can file for unemployment compensation. That is what unemployment compensation is for! In this scenario the CEOs who made the bad decisions will be more adversely affected than the honest workers down the chain. ("Oh, you were a bank teller until your company failed ... " will not look bad on a resume. "Oh, you drove one of the five largest corporations in America into the ground ..." on the other hand, will. Or at least should.)

If there is going to be any kind of bail out, it should be for people, not for companies. The government can go ahead and create a fund that individuals (human beings, not corporate entities) who feel that they've been harmed by this financial disaster can apply for aid. Let the government do what it can to help taxpayers keep their homes, and not lose their savings. Their needs to be a review process in place so that no one is taking advantage of government hand outs. And then cap any such assistance at a reasonable amount -- say $250,000 per person. A quarter of a million dollars should be enough assistance to get anyone through rough times until they can get back on their feet again.

In short I think the government shouldn't be helping businesses, but should be helping individual people. Let the corporations fail. Help the people affected get their lives back together.

How can this woman be a candidate for ... anything? Seriously.

Watch CBS Videos Online

What I find most frightening is that some people are actually enthusiastic about this woman. There are religious wackos praying that McCain will not only win the election, but DIE SHORTLY AFTERWARD so that Palin will be President.

I suppose I'll just stick to I've been saying since the last election: America get's what it deserves by electing these boobs.

I recently received a mysterious DVD in the mail called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. I have yet to actually view the DVD (and might not ever), but I found it's arrival rather suspect. Just exactly who would spend all the money it would take to send thousands (possibly millions) of DVDs around the country? And why do they want me to hate (or fear) Islam? And why did they send it now? (Does it have anything to do with the election?)

The DVD comes from a self proclaimed non-profit organization called the Clarion Fund. (Link goes to wikipedia). According to wikipedia:

According to the Clarion Fund's website, "Clarion Fund, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are independent and do not accept funding from the U.S. Government, political institutions, or foreign organizations."[6] The Tampa Tribune, however, reports that "Clarion has yet to file a 990 tax return with the Internal Revenue Service, which is required of all tax-exempt entities.[4] Also, The Palm Beach Post points out that the Fund "is not listed with Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits based on efficient use of donors' money" and that Clarion has provided "No names of directors. No sources of money. Just the mission statement" on its website.

No shit? This does sound mysterious.

According to this wikinews article:

The video was produced and distributed by Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization connected with Zionist and pro-Israeli organizations. The DVDs were delivered with leading newspapers mostly in swing states such as Ohio, Florida, and Michigan.

Note that Pennsylvania (the CD was sent to my PA address and forwarded) is a swing state.

Furthermore:

An investigation by IPS in 2007 revealed that Obsession's production was... closely tied to right-wing Zionists both in America and Israel. Rabbi Ephram Shore, brother of Clarion Fund's founder Raphael Shore, is the head of an Israeli group which was involved in the film. Various weblinks on the group's website focus on anti-Semitism and Israel.

The funds for the production of the movie were reported as having been borrowed, but there is no word on where the funds for the distribution came from. A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ibrahim Hooper, commented that he "can't imagine that you can produce, package, distribute and advertise this product for less than 50 million dollars".

I find this whole thing to be a little fishy. My Bullshit Detector is registering pretty high right now.

It's clear to me that Clarion Fund - whatever they are - is not to be trusted. Whoever they are, they cloak themselves in secrecy, which suggests that they are "up to something." They are also clearly pushing an agenda, probably a political agenda. They have some pretty strong accusations against which they need to defend themselves before they can earn any degree of trust.

Unfortunately, it's also clear that the writer of the wikinews article is biased as well. That article cannot be trusted as completely accurate either.

(I should confess that I know the identity of the author of the wikinews article from the atheist blogosphere; I know a priori that her writings lean dramatically to the left.)

At the moment I must conclude not to trust anyone.

That is probably good advice in a large number of situations. :-)

An article over on ScienceNow provides a somewhat more digestible version of a study which ...

suggests that people with radically different social attitudes also differ in certain automatic fear responses.

In particular ...

individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War.

To summarize, the politically conservatives tend to be more susceptible to fear; they are more easily startled.

Or, if you like, "change freaks them out", which in some sense is the definition of conservative. Perhaps this study shows us nothing new.

Razib over at Gene Expression has a wonderful analysis, including the necessary statement:

Does this mean that there are genes for conservatism and liberalism? NO!!! That's just plain retarded.

Although I do find the idea intriguing that conservatives may have their world view governed by their fears, I'm not wholly ready to embrace it as fact. A sample size of 46 is probably big enough to provide hints and clues, but still to small to say anything definitive.

It's very easy to poke a few holes in the study. For example, the sample seems to have come entirely from Nebraska. Do conservatives (and liberals) in Nebraska adequately reflect conservatives (receptively liberals) around the nation? A good scientist wouldn't be willing to make that extrapolation without some evidence. (A good scientist should be reluctant to answer with anything other than "I'm not sure" or "good question" or other non-answer when posed with such question - assuming no evidence exists to support any more definitive answer).

Aside from large scale testing, to see if such behavior correlates to liberals and conservatives around the country, I'd like to see this kind of study done on people with strong religious beliefs. For one, I suspect that different religions have different correlations (which I would like to see verified or disproved). It seems that certain religions thrive on the fears of their followers, while other might not do so.

Additionally, there is already a strong correlation between religious beliefs and political parties in this country. Perhaps we are seeing another portion of the same beast.

So I've been called for Jury Duty ... in Pennsylvania ... where I haven't lived in 6 months.

I suppose I shouldn't be too critical of the local government there, since it's only been 6 months. It's not like I've been living in Vermont for 6 years.

The thing is, however, a few months ago I received notice that my PA voter registration was being canceled because I had moved. Imagine that! They only needed 90 days to take me off the voter registration books, but were somehow unable to figure out that I shouldn't be selected for jury duty.

The problem here is that the republican party actively tries to remove people from the voter registry. It's a very strange strategy, really. The republicans aggressively try to get people not to vote, especially in demographics that will likely vote against them. It's like they're admitting that they have a bad product that no one wants, so they remove their competitors customers to increase their own "market share".

Like I said, strange. One would think they would ... oh... change their platform to something more people would vote for.

In the mean time, I'm just not going to vote in Vermont - at least not this cycle. I can't really say anything intelligent about the local political scene, so I will just keep my mouth shut. On the national level, Vermont is not a battleground state by any stretch. My vote really wouldn't matter much.

For now I have 30 days to convince the folks back in Pennsylvania that I can't be called for Jury duty from 3 states away. The task shouldn't be hard, but who knows? Maybe I should serve just to argue that I deserve my voting rights back.

From this statement on John McCain's website:

It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but ...

WTF does Dungeons and Dragons have anything to do with ... well, anything? And WTF makes the McCain camp think insulting D&D players (with the trite "mom's basement" cliche and essentially calling D&D players cowards) is supposed to accomplish. Seriously, WTF? Why is there a reference to Dungeons and Dragons in this statement?

I guess McCain is really trying to win over the Monopoly crowd. I here the Chutes and Ladders voting block is on the fence too, so insulting D&D players should go far in winning them over.

Since W took office, I've been increasingly disappointed to the point of outright repulsed by the republican party.

I am a registered independent. I like to believe that whenever I have to choose between the republican and democratic candidates for an office, that I can ignore party affiliation and make some informed and objective decision. Increasingly I find that more and more impossible because the republican party embraces some positions that I cannot tolerate.

Perhaps the most revolting thing about the new republican party - something that has come dramatically to the forefront - is their ability to spew absolute nonsense and falsehoods, yet still expect people to accept it.

Wow! Did you hear that?

In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.

What chutzpah! McCain says it, and with such conviction. How can anyone hear those words and not think "This man is trying to deceive me?"

The problem is, that statement classifies as pretty low level political rhetoric for the republican party. For eight years the republicans have spewn a continuous stream of lies and deception. They've been blatant about it. There press releases are saturated with Orwellian double-speak. Anyone with two brain cells should be able to see through them.

As long as this continues I cannot possibly support the republican party, making me a de facto democrat. I'm not really happy about that, believe me. I feel so sticky and unclean. But I really have no other choice.

Our commander in chief has totally manged to make an ass of himself - or as we might say, shown his true colors.

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

I'm ashamed that my country elected this buffoon not once, but twice. January 2009 cannot come soon enough.