Blog Us A Blog

1.

Call me what you like, but my stomach hurts the same
‘twas eight years ago I folded that little paper so carefully and neat
its ripple then (now a tidal wave) of men dead now strikes a new pain.
My mind, I can’t say is tormented by that one vote, such a small feat
to vote, but steeps in ambivalence, confusion maybe,
doubt that there wasn’t a better way for us to follow
than this path we’ve blazed—this path of tears and sorrow
and learned our history, the one few choose to see.
now in greater degree, that pane has grown opaque
like a window after too much winter it hides our fate.

2.

Can’t we clear it still and polish away the filth to see?
that’s what my heart, swallowing pride, wishes and whispers
on that chance to come, one in millions, the chance never free
the chance that cost blood (blood well spent?) that says freedom sores!
and freedom isn’t dead, nor lost in one man: God burned This to speak
to Moses—remember?—to free a nation and cross the red sea
on dry ground. This all—now in our little window of time—for me
for you to use, to know, that in life no prize or glory finds the meek.
should you find yourself tormented by that one vote,
remember the greatest loss is that of Hope.

Talking politics is a lot like Bible Bashing. You can have fifty people and as many valid, rational, interpretations of the Bible. If you think otherwise, you’ve got some major intellectual growth to undertake, and I don’t need you to waste my time.

Politics is about world-views, and choosing branches of an infinitely bifurcated, fractalistic, decision tree. I’m tempted to say, there is no right answer, yet I stick to my guns that moral relativism is the bane of our society. True Politics is driven by feelings… by wanting to do the right thing … but it’s rooted in the abstract, in projections and predictions.

Once in a blue moon, someone comes who rises above the contradiction of modern politics; who effortlessly weaves the abstract with the absolute—hope in the hemming. The enabler of human happiness unites solely by being extant, as a natural effusion of his dream and vision. His impetus is not external; it is inherent and it inspires.

The choice to accept or reject our harbinger of hope rests on every individual. The absolutist in me wants to say that there is a common core in everyone. The relativist screams back that it’s not possible. But majority proves, that at the very least, our cores are made from the same stuff. We can’t change this. But we can choose the core’s adorning accoutrements, and with that step we also chose to violate or enforce immovable egalitarian principles.

Let me end with the indelible wisdom of William Shakespeare and with the injunction that we remember it come November:

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

While on my adventure in Kos land, I got to thinking. People talk about Records a lot—they say things like, Obama doesn’t have much of a record and it’s super duper liberal, or, Hillary’s succeeded in crafting a fairly moderate voting record over the years., or even, McCain’s record, despite what they tell you, is rather conservative.

That kind of thing.

The other thing people (politicians mainly) say about records is that, if you would just look at my record, the whole world will be evident.

The fact is not many of us go out of our way to read up on the candidates voting history. So I decided to present the BHO and HRC records side by side here.

Keep in mind that missed votes often say volumes more than the voted votes. It’s like McCain saying he’s a social conservative when he’s tried to avoid all the key social conservative votes—the misses matter.

Read the rest of this entry

A shocked Barack Obama fled a group of reporters yesterday demanding answers to surfacing questions regarding the Democratic presidential candidates campaign. Does this signify the end of the love affair between the so-called mainstream media and Liberal darling Barack Obama? Maybe.

Up until now, a plenitude of footage and quotes portraying an all-together exasperated Hillary Clinton has satisfied the media’s appetite for “edge” and provided Mr. Obama an unusual immunity to media-scrutiny. But the pilloried-Hillary image may have morphed into an object of pity—excessive scrutiny tends to do that. The time has come for a classic showdown with Mr. Confidence.

The media is a dog—big, powerful, dirty, smelly—with one exception: It’s not loyal to anything or anyone. The Clinton’s made this mistake earlier in the campaign. Barack may be just learning his lesson.

Like a dog, the media loves the taste of blood. It doesn’t have to be Republican blood, white-blood, woman or man blood. Just blood period. At yesterday’s conference, the reporters smelt blood, and Barack fled like wounded prey. The trail is hot, and no reporter in his right mind will let it get cold.

So expect to see a lot more of Obama’s frightened face. Expect to hear a lot more of the “we’re running late” excuse with “all the pertinent information has been presented”, and the sound of swooshing curtains. Love affairs don’t last, especially when your mistress is a pack of heartless reporters who make a living off political blood and guts.

Discarded lids from the McDonald’s McFlurry dessert sold in Germany have been implicated in the tragic deaths of many German Hedgehogs. According to Der Spiegel, the size of the opening on the lids was just large enough to allow the Hedgehog to push its head through and become perilously trapped. Pressure from Germany’s environmental lobby has succeeded in effecting a redesign of the deathly lids.

Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND), the nation’s largest environmental group, says that it has received reports of between 50 and 100 cases of hedgehogs getting trapped in McFlurry packaging during the last two years alone. The group then lobbied McDonald’s to develop a hedgehog-safe lid.

But McDonald’s has a conundrum on their hands. You see, the McFlurry hole has to be big enough for a spoon, yet just small enough to prevent the Hedgehog from entering. At one point, even a doggy-door like flap was considered—in the end, a more traditional design won out.

The new lids debut was just a few weeks ago with plans for nation wide use by the end of next month. With Hedgehog season on its way, the timing couldn’t be better.

This whole story is like some strange hybrid of a Sherlock Holmes novel and a pamphlet from PETA: mysterious deaths caused by starvation, the Autobahn, German Hedgehogs, the McFlurry. The full article, published on Der Spiegel, is here. It’s good for at least one hearty make-PETA-people-writhe laugh.

Not that I don’t care tremendously about the German Hedgehog, but this typifies the modern mindset—we’re always trying to solve a problem without addressing the fundamental cause. In this particular case, the real problem—the German’s penchant for littering—has been mistaken for the McFlurry lid. Even if McDonald’s changes the McFlurry lid design, they will fail to solve the root problem, and we’ll start finding some other animal, um, like the Stuttgart Red-Breasted swallow, emaciated in discarded Styrofoam cups.

The Modern Human tries to fix things like poverty or crime by handing out checks when the real problem is a broken family, a corroding morality, or a general lack of ethics. (At least one ex-presidential candidate knew this.) Times like these, I am reminded of the old adage, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time.” But can we really expect McDonald’s to understand this?

The Bush Doctrine: Answering an age old question

George Bush is a sinner. Not a wretched sinner like the kind that will burn in hell for a thousand years, but a sinner like most of us, guilty primarily of “omissional” sinning—sins done by not doing rather than by actively doing. Any time you hear a Conservative say, “Bush has failed to do … ” you should think “sin of omission!”

Even though I believe we all sin to a greater or lesser degree, sins of omission are serious buisiness when you’ve got a heavy responsibility like the President. It’s hard to judge, because the more responsibility you have, the more you have to do, and so the more you have to forget and so on—it’s a tough juggling act, I’m sure, so I wont be too Bush-vituperative right now. I’ll just say that his transgressions are legion, to the point I won’t innumerate them here.

But George Bush is also a Saint, and has some superlatively admirable qualities: he’s winsome, humble (Lefties re: arrogant), optimistic, bold. And he tells us he reads the Bible every day! If this is true, and I have no reason to think otherwise, it’s impressive. But true or not, one thing is sure, he’s at least read through the first few chapters of Genesis. George Bush’s brainchild (lovingly coined the “Bush Doctrine” after a plethora of other “Doctrines”—failed, mostly, but canonized nonetheless in the lexicon of American political experiments) is an answer to one of the Bible’s first and oldest questions.

Thousands of years ago, one of the Bible’s premiere characters, murdered his brother out of jealousy. It was the world’s first murder, and like most murders, had something to do with a sacrifice, vegetables, and Satan. The brother’s name was Abel, and the culprit was the now-infamous Cain. When confronted by the Lord about his brother’s whereabouts, Cain feigned ignorance and gave this bit: I know not. Am I my brothers keeper? Not a good thing to say to an all-knowing, all-powerful Being. So, Cain suffered the consequences.

Well, Cain died long ago (Big Foot???) but his one-liner lives on. Indeed, thousands of years later, the debate over that seemingly innocuous question still rages. Thankfully, George Bush offers us and the world an answer. The following excerpts are from his 2007 State of the Union address. Similar remarks can be found in speeches dating all the way back to the Presidents first year in office.

Bush’s answer: “We are our brothers keeper.”

In the Presidents own words:

What every terrorist fears most is human freedom—societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies—and most will choose a better way when they’re given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must.

We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma—and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur. American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease—and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa.

I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty. When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty.

The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must. In the last two years, we’ve seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East—... And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget.

Only time will tell how history will judge the presidency of George W. Bush. Let us hope, at the very least, that we remember the Saint along with the Sinner.

Is there still a place for isolationism in the modern world?

Sometimes “beings of great power” are better off left alone. And rather than condemn what we don’t understand, it is an act of superlative wisdom and maturity to admit that our ignorance is often the foundational cause of our fear. There is still a practical and even precious place for aspects of an isolationist political philosophy in the modern world.

The need for a foreign policy that is at least in part isolationistic stems from our limited ability to discern truth. Conquering an annoying penchant for moral imposition, America must learn that the age old battle between good and evil is not black and white. At least not the black and the white we’re used to. Could it be that occidental morality—in the political sense—is not a political panacea?

Having said that, I do believe in ultimate truth, and in permanent, divine principles; I’m not trying to undermine the veracity of these. What I am doing, is trying to shed light on the limitations of our understanding of truth and divine principles. Captain Jean-Luc Picard profoundly understood these limitations. I think we can learn much from his example:

When the Governator ran for governor of California way back when, I have to admit I was excited. I mean, it’s not often that a big-name actor turns Republican (I think I can name them all on one hand), let alone your Republican governor. A lot of us hard-core conservatives overlooked his blatant conservative perfidies on account of being … well, I’ll just say it, on account of being star-struck.

Read the rest of this entry

POLITICO reported earlier today that the DNC will file a complaint to the FEC regarding John McCain’s campaign spending.

Quoting the DNC committee, Jonathan Martin reported,

“According to McCain’s latest campaign filing, he has already spent $49.6 million and given that a month has passed, he has exceeded or is about to exceed the approximately $56.8 million spending limit [in the primary],” the committee said in a press released issued in conjunction with an afternoon conference call by Howard Dean intended to draw attention to the matter.

Evidently, John McCain is attempting to free himself from public financing restrictions by withdrawing from the public campaign finance system. The DNC rejects this option, calling attention to fund-matching obligations and ballot access legalities. By committing to public funds last year under McCain-Feingold, it seems McCain has gotten himself into a “quagmire of his own design.”

Former FEC chair Brad Smith published a deliciously loquacious article on the topic of Matching Funds, and had this to say of John McCain’s finance obligations. I wont make you read the whole thing:

MCCAIN COMMITS

John McCain was one of these candidates who announced that he would not take the money. Then McCain’s campaign hit its early summer implosion. McCain’s fundraising was flat, his campaign broke. Many thought McCain would pack it in. But McCain cut his staff, focused almost all his resources on New Hampshire, and applied for the matching funds, to “keep the option open.” In fact, on August 20 of last year he became the first candidate the FEC approved for matching funds for the 2008 campaign.

Smith claims later in the article that a simple approval for matching funds alone does not “lock” one into the public system. It’s more complicated than that. In fact, a blessed mixture of adroit lawyering and vague semantics will probably put McCain in the free. At least that’s what Smith and other policy experts think. Smith quotes Mark Scarberry, a professor at Pepperdine Law School. Scarberry said:

If I were a lender, and a candidate who could not repay the loan refused to access funds that were available to repay the loan, I would think that the candidate was acting very, very unreasonably, and perhaps in bad faith. A commitment to access such funds if needed would seem almost to be implied, if we assume the candidate honestly wants to repay the loan. And isn’t it the case that every unsuccessful candidate who qualifies for public funds, and who has not yet exceeded spending limits, ends up asking for them, at least if they are needed to repay loans?

This leads me to conclude that McCain’s promise (if he made one), should not prevent McCain from withdrawing his application for public funds. He did not use the opportunity to obtain public funds to convince the lenders to provide the loans to any greater degree than he could have had he not applied for the funds.

Although the opportunity to obtain public funds may have been used to “secure” the loans (in the sense of “obtain” the loans), the loans were not “secured” by the right to the public funds (in the sense of the right being collateral for the loans). The lenders would not be entitled to be repaid from the public funds ahead of any other creditors of McCain (or of whatever related entity obtained the loans).

The real problem has to do with Ohio ballot access law. According to Ohio law, you have to do one of two things to get on the ballot: get a load of signatures all over the state at significant financial and temporal cost (e.g., Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, Rudy) ... or present FEC matching funds to the Secretary of State. Apparently McCain chose the latter, and this presents a bit of a problem. But does this mean McCain is bound by FEC rules? Even Smith admits being flummoxed. I don’t have a clue, but I think the humble Straight-Talk express is in for a bit of a detour.

When the Governator ran for governor of California way back when, I have to admit I was excited. I mean, it’s not often that a big-name actor turns Republican (I think I can name them all on one hand), let alone your Republican governor. A lot of us hard-core conservatives overlooked his blatant conservative perfidies on account of being … well, I’ll just say it, on account of being star-struck.

Then reality hit. But what were we supposed to do- recall him? A few of us have tried shifting the blame by playing victim to Arnold’s duplicitous double-talk, but we knew better. I’m sure of it. And now when were asked how we feel about the “Governator,” we shift our eyes about abashed and come up with some excuse for why he’s still a good Republican at heart. Nothing can change the fact that were stuck with an Austrian Grey Davis on steroids with star-appeal, married to a Kennedy.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is just one of a string of so-called “progressive Republicans” – a code word for “Lib’s in sheep’s clothing,” though Arnold is perhaps one of the more crafty wolves in the pack. His English-language deficiencies might actually be a boon to his image; have you heard him at press conferences? Schwarzenegger and an innumerable gang of infiltrators- the RP brotherhood with McCain as chief patrician- are cancerous, and pose a greater threat to American sovereignty then left-wing nuts.

The pusillanimously ovine Republican-Conservative constituency needs to extricate the Schwarzenegger’s, and the McCain’s, or California will become a microcosm of American. The Republican party will embody a platform opposed to national sovereignty, and characterized by shameful moral compromises portrayed by party wallah’s as lofty bipartisanship.

I’ve never been so excited over the quintessentially, pedantically professorial Ralph Nader. Tim Russert is having him on Meet The Press tomorrow, presumably to announce another third party run. This is me desperately hoping he “spoils” it for the Dems like he did in 2000 … or at least like they claim he did. What a bunch of petty crock! Anyway, I know that every idiotic Liberal will vote for Obama when he’s the nominee (Hillary is inestimably better than Obama and I don’t want to jinx her). Obama fills them (the Libs) up on platitudes, and they love it: “Oh I love you so much Obama! You’re our salvation, you’re a saint, our redeemer!—you’re our … everything!” It makes me sick. The young vote will stick like glue to Barack, and that has got to make Nader’s chances tough, but is there really such a paucity of intelligence in Liberal America?

Please tell me no!

Go Nader Go!

Do the names Alfred Landon, Wendell Wilkie, and Thomas Dewey mean anything to you? They are the names of three successive Republican candidates for president from the year 1936 to 1948. All were nominated by the GOP, and all three lost to Democratic counterparts.

The first half of the twentieth century was a critical time in American history; we suffered two world wars and a psychologically devastatingly depression. That’s right, the Great Depression’s only real hurt was psychological, but that doesn’t mean it was any less real. I think any doctor would agree, psychological pain can far outlast anything physical. The effects can persist for years. In this case, they will go on for decades or centuries even, or until our decline—whichever comes first. Consistent Republican party losses in the competition for the nation’s highest office from 1936 to 1948 portended a key shift in American ideals, and the onset of a socialistic pandemic.

The Democratic monopoly of the Executive branch actually began a few years prior to Landon’s 1936 run when Franklin Roosevelt defeated incumbent Herbert Hoover in 1933. Spanning a period of 15 years, Democrats maintained a firm grasp on American ideological thought and by innocent ignorance or demagoguery or more likely a mixture of both, constructed the frame of the cancerous liberal platform that shelters the modern Democratic party.

A general lack of faith in industrialism and self-reliance with the hopelessness of the Great Depression is what provided liberalism a clear segue to power. A battered and indignant American public was in no mood for the do-it-yourself harangues of impoverished orphan turned multi-millionaire Herbert Hoover. Despite (or in light of) his own rags-to-riches story, he maintained a strict conservative view on social government intervention, and he was beat handily after his first term. Hands were out for government hand-outs, and FDR delivered on his promise.

Socialism is like the lottery and an array of other vices—it’s like the sheepdog after it’s tasted the sheep’s blood, because in a very real sense, socialism sucks on the blood of the nation—taking nourishment from self-inflicted lacerations. America’s penchant for political “blood” will only sharpen. To many, the Reagan Revolution of the 1980’s marked a political revival of conservatism in America. The presidencies of G.H. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush and the current electoral race indicate that, if anything, Reagan’s unction lacked the divine blessing.

Romney endorsed McCain earlier today, and the pundits missed the boat again with their analysis. Romney did not endorse McCain in an attempt to quell conservative concerns, as many suggested. He stated explicitly in his statement that significant differences still exist—it’s not another “flip flop.” The endorsement was one of necessity and pragmatism only, designed to prioritize, not compromise, the conservative agenda. Let me mention also that it is another tactical move to further endear Romney to the heart of the Republican establishment. Possible Romney-McCain ticket?

More later.

First, the president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, visited California yesterday as a guest of the Governor. His address was titled, “Americans are Bigots and should give California back to Mexico.” Go here for an AP article on the event. I love it when corrupt leaders of failing states come traipsing into America and tell us we need to improve. Rather than calling for comprehensive American immigration reform, maybe he should do something to end comprehensive Mexican migration. Smarmy accolades and genuflections abounded, as the Governor, the First Lady, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, and other mindless socialists “celebrated” America’s confluvial intercourse with Mexico.

Second, is this little piece lifted from the Constitution Party website:

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

While I agree with the above seven points, as far as I can tell, the existence of the CP is a fairly obvious inconsistency in and of itself. The Constitution Party claims to represent the intents of the Founders, and this may be true in principle; yet the founders were opposed to the formation of all political parties. Where does this leave the CP? They probably mean well, but political change needs to begin with independent voices, and this requires a lot more effort, and maybe even a little redundancy.

In today’s Politco/ABC interview, Hillary Clinton had this to say about John McCain.

—About Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), she cracked: “Luckily, I agree with my party more than Senator McCain agrees with his party.”

If this doesn’t presage what is to come, I don’t know what does. Just wait until they start playing the line, “I think Hillary’d make a great president!” The RP is in trouble.