December 2, 2007

EatFoo: Government Salt Limits: My Worst Nightmare

Mini Link: EatFoo: Government Salt Limits: My Worst Nightmare

The FDA is considering limits on the amount of salt in packaged foods. Read about it at EatFoo.

Posted by Barzelay at 3:10 AM | Comments (0)

November 14, 2007

Tolerated Lawbreaking when Politics Break Down

I've been sitting on this for a few weeks, but now that I'm making another effort to blog again, I'm finally posting it. It's a very, very interesting article on the ways in which America tolerates violations of the law. Written by Tim Wu, it addresses drugs, copyright, immigration, porn, polygamy, and much more.

Tim Wu really draws out the ways in which unenforcement, or selective enforcement, can step in to respond to societal changes when politics cannot. Thoughts?

Posted by Barzelay at 12:50 AM | Comments (0)

November 3, 2007

Candidates' Public Views vs. Private Views

Jeff wrote the following comment on my previous post about the apparent close clustering of major political candidates around a narrow range of views:

I have to doubt the methods the Political Compass people are using here. Do they try to infer the positions of candidates from their public statements? If so, how? And how do they add a "strongly" to a particular issue stance?

I definitely wonder because I don't think I'm more of a social libertarian than Rep. Paul. Or at least not that much more. The economic thing seems pretty spot-on... just not sure about the up-down scale here.

Oh yeah, and how the heck is Rudolph the Red-Faced Mayor (one of the most strident authoritarians out there) near the "libertarian" end of the Republican spectrum?

Jeff, you're right. There is absolutely no way for them to grade the candidates without the candidates themselves taking the quiz (or at least someone from their campaigns who can authoritatively say whether Barack Obama merely agrees, or strongly agrees that "There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment"). And we can easily quibble about where they've put each candidate on the Compass. But in general, I think they're right. At least according to the candidates public, election-time personae. All the candidates ARE authoritarian right, as long as there is a camera around.

As I said above, candidates stated positions and views don't necessarily reflect their actual, personal beliefs. But--here's the interesting thing--we as a nation are actually very good at seeing through candidates' position statements to intuit what kind of people they really are. We may not be a nation of thinkers, but we are a nation of intuiters, and as Colbert might accurately point out, our gut instincts and hunches about people define our views about them. It's why everyone still thinks Hillary Clinton is really liberal even though her positions are mostly fairly conservative. She probably is actually very liberal, but the political expediencies of the last ten years have driven her public positions far rightward, in order to "overcome" the political liability that is her actual mindset.

Consider this question from the Political Compass quiz, for instance: "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." Do you really believe for a second that Barack Obama wants to answer anything but "Strongly Disagree?" I don't. But he has to seem "tough" and assure the nation that he would protect us, even if France or whatever says we can't. Because even though we are good at reading people, we are idiots. So if the candidates were publicly taking the Political Compass exam, as opposed to their private answers for what they really believe, every single one of the Democrats except maybe Kucinich and Gravel would put "Agree," and every single one of the Republicans would put "Strongly Agree." Privately, I'm sure their views span the whole spectrum.

We have a political culture of disingenuity, and we have good enough intuition that we all know it. But no one knows what to do about it, because they're all afraid that the next President might confiscate all their Bibles, or might institute a draft for a war against doctors who perform abortions. Nearly everyone in this country can plainly see that every major candidate is being disingenuous at least 95% of the time. But what can we do?

Anyone Type A enough to have the sort of political career that puts them in contention for the Presidency is just not the type of person to have moderate views on everything. But no one with immoderate views on even a single issue can even dream of getting elected in this country. Privately, we all have somewhat "extreme" views on some issues. But politicians can't afford non-homogeneity. If an honest politician actually came along and tried to run for President, giving real answers to all the questions he gets asked, he would instantly be labeled as crazy and extreme on most issues. We want honesty, but we want a "normal" candidate even more. America fetishizes normalcy. And I have no idea how the situation can ever get any better.

Posted by Barzelay at 1:00 AM | Comments (5)

November 2, 2007

Political Clustering

Political Compass has posted a chart depicting the positions each candidate for President would hold on their scale.

We all know it, but it's so disturbing to see it laid out there. Every single major candidate is in the quadrant opposite me. Goddamn two-party system without proportional representation! I want a 16% atheist government!

I apparently fall, on a scale of -10 (economically left) to 10 (economically right), at -3.88, mostly because I support strong public education, welfare, and funding for the arts. Basically, I don't mind high taxes, but I still want free markets for business. On the social scale, from -10 (Liberatarian) to 10 (Authoritarian), I'm at a whopping -8.92. Yeah. Anyway, that's a lot more descriptive than saying I'm a "Democrat," when I don't really even like the Democrats.

In case you haven't taken their quiz yet, you really ought to check it out. It separates economic politics from social politics, so that instead of merely being "a Democrat," or "a Republican," one can be more precise. Their scale (and their assessment quiz) obviously has its limitations, but it's still very interesting.

Posted by Barzelay at 4:24 AM | Comments (11)

November 10, 2006

Pandering To The Hacker Bloc

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) on e-voting:

Now don’t get me wrong – there’s a 100% chance that the voting machines will get hacked and all future elections will be rigged. But that doesn’t mean we’ll get a worse government. It probably means that the choice of the next American president will be taken out of the hands of deep-pocket, autofellating, corporate shitbags and put it into the hands of some teenager in Finland. How is that not an improvement?

Statistically speaking, any hacker who is skilled enough to rig the elections will also be smart enough to select politicians that believe in . . . oh, let’s say for example, science. Compare that to the current method where big money interests buy political ads that confuse snake-dancing simpletons until they vote for the guy who scares them the least. Then during the period between the election and the impending Rapture, that traditionally elected President will get busy protecting the lives of stem cells while finding creative ways to blow the living crap out on anything that has the audacity to grow up and turn brownish.

Posted by Barzelay at 2:26 AM | Comments (1)

November 8, 2006

On Being A Contrarian

Years ago, before the idiot took office, I was registered Republican. For a brief two years, in fact, I identified as moderately conservative. I was never the least bit socially conservative, but I definitely have a strong libertarian streak, and it used to be that the Republican party was the party for small government and for less intrusion into our lives. That is definitely no longer the case. Both of the major parties are now equally interested in shoving their policies and their programs up our asses. Nevertheless, during the intervening period, I've come to support the Democratic party quite strongly. During college I experienced a political maturation, and realized that there is a proper role for government social programs and a reasonable amount of market interference. I also realized that while the economic side of politics is important, it is nowhere near as important to me as civil liberties. And the Republicans have completely relinquished their commitment to liberty in favor of their commitment to their religion.

As I shifted swiftly to the left, I assumed that I genuinely was changing my mind to support the things the Democrats stood for. I was a Democrat, not just an independent who really hated George Bush. And indeed, I do agree with the Democrats quite often. But last night, the Democrats won back the House and the Senate, and in the course of one night, I really surprised myself. After years of staunchly supporting all Democratic candidates (at least over Republicans), being an apologist for Democratic policies, and praying to the FSM for Dem gains, in the course of one night I gained a lot of insight into my own political opinions.

You see, as I watched the returns come in, and the various races were called, a curious phenomenon occurred. The more seats the Dems won, the more I got to thinking about how little I like the Democrats. When it was confirmed that they had won the House, I was thinking about all the corrupt, pandering, focus-group style representatives on the Democrats side. When Nancy Pelosi came on talking about all the great things Dems are gonna do, I was rolling my eyes at her sudden willingness to work with Bush, at her frozen face, and at her general politican-ness. When the pundits were discussing how many of the gains were made by socially conservative "values Democrats," I was disgusted that "my" party was harboring so many bigots and self-righteous, anti-reason, anti-science assholes. And when Montana and Virginia were tentatively called for Dems, I realized something very significant:

I am not really a Democrat. I am a contrarian.

In other words, I dislike whoever is in power. For the foreseeable future, I'm likely to keep voting Dem, because while the Democrats are way to the right of me socially, the Republicans are even further. The Republicans right now are all about fear, racism, torture, violence, brutality, machismo, repression, sexism, homophobia, and censorship. I'm not about those things. But I definitely hold no special love for the Democratic party. They aren't standing up and demanding same-sex marriage, nor demanding restoration of the rights eroded since and before 9/11. The fact is that even the Democratic party is, by the standards of myself and my peers (i.e., those with whom I interact regularly), quite conservative. And I am not.

Is the Democratic party the progressive party? The party of change, of enlightenment, of a more free and fair society? Well, only compared to the Republicans. And so I hope that in the ensuing years of Democrat control, they show me otherwise. I hope that they show that all of their moderate talk was nothing more than appeasement, designed to capture the power before getting back to their real, liberal, pro-gay, pro-minority, pro-social program mentality. We'll see.

Posted by Barzelay at 10:44 AM | Comments (15)

July 20, 2006

We Won Our Motions Against The Gov't And AT&T!

Judge Walker (George W. Bush's cousin, and an appointee of Bush, Sr.) has denied the government's state secrets motion, and denied AT&T's motions to dismiss in EFF's suit against AT&T for its cooperation in the government's warrantless wiretapping program!

The order just came out about half an hour ago, and the EFF office is abuzz. Everyone is so jazzed about this. We pretty much knew we were winning these as soon as we realized that the Judge didn't mention September 11th within the first paragraph.

There are a bunch of juicy quotes, as well, such as this one:

"But it is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive’s constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired. The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security."

And this one:

"Because the alleged dragnet here encompasses the communications of "all or substantially all of the communications transmitted through [AT&T’s] key domestic telecommunications facilities," it cannot reasonably be said that the program as alleged is limited to tracking foreign powers. Accordingly, AT&T’s alleged actions here violate the constitutional rights clearly established in Keith. Moreover, because "the very action in question has previously been held unlawful," AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."

He also quotes Hamdi:

"Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake."

And he even questions whether the government was being truthful in its disclosures:

"If the government’s public disclosures have been truthful, revealing whether AT&T has received a certification to assist in monitoring communication content should not reveal any new information that would assist a terrorist and adversely affect national security. And if the government has not been truthful, the state secrets privilege should not serve as a shield for its false public statements."

Posted by Barzelay at 3:15 PM | Comments (6)

June 28, 2006

Don't they have anything better to do than BLANK?!?!

It's been irking me quite a bit lately to see everyone spouting off about the rightsflag-burning amendment and providing no argument but, "Doesn't Congress have anything better to do?" For instance, see the comments on Zhubin's post.

The same argument is used in other contexts. Velvet's commenters ask whether D.C. cops have anything better to do than be assholes and block citizens from going to work. And in blog wars, someone inevitably uses the defense, "Don't you have anything better to do than troll my blog, posting anonymous comments?" or, "Don't you have anything better to do than post this stupid tripe every day on your blog?" It's an easy argument to make, and it's one people make all the time. And it has been coming out in full force with the flag debate.

The trouble is, this argument ignores the very real arguments underlying it. It's a disservice to the issues. In the flag-burning debate, the trouble isn't that there are more pressing problems, the trouble is that banning flag-burning stifles free speech and removes guaranteed civil liberties. Ignoring those arguments in order to point out that we have other problems is downplaying the severity of this possible incursion to our liberties.

<Godwin>It's like saying, "Don't the Nazis have anything better to do than transport those Jews all around Europe?"</Godwin>

Remember that these are very real and scary threats to our freedom. They are not merely Congress playing politics, or Congress ignoring other issues. 66 members of Congress are acting affirmatively to strip our freedoms, and in the process showing that they understand absolutely nothing about America and what it means. Who cares that there are other issues they need to address?

So quit using this tired cliche of an argument against things that really are big problems. Don't they have anything better to do? Maybe so, but even if they didn't, that doesn't make what they're doing right. Trolling anonymously and posting rude comments is wrong by itself, whether or not the trolls' time could be better spent. Power-mad cops acting above the law and being assholes to perfectly reasonable and innocent civilians is wrong, whether or not there are other things the cop should be doing. And stripping us of our rights is sinister and wrong, whether or not there is ballooning national debt, an unwinnable war being fought on false pretenses, an Executive who completely ignores the Constitution, a major U.S. city still devastated nearly a year after a routine hurricane, and countless other issues.

So argue these things on their merits, rather than on the business of the schedules of those who are in control. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice to the issues and implicitly accepting the merits of the other side's position, while your only argument is that the topic is de minimis. it isn't. It's very real, and very important.

Posted by Barzelay at 2:26 PM | Comments (3)

June 18, 2006

Flag-Burning

<Insert here: Enraged post about how misguided idiots think banning flag-burning is somehow alright>

I actually wrote just such a post, but decided against posting it. Instead, I exercised my right to free speech while I still can. Anyway, my argument can be summed up with this quote from Thomas Sowell:

"When your response to everything that is wrong with the world is to say, "there ought to be a law," you are saying that you hold freedom very cheap."

Instead of that long, impassioned post I wrote, here is a practical question:

What constitutes a "flag," and what sort of "desecration" will be outlawed? Consider:

Is an image of a flag a "flag" for purposes of desecration bans? If I open up a photo of a flag in Photoshop, and change it, or delete some pixels, or resize it, or alter the image so that it looks like the flag is touching the ground, have I desecrated the United States' flag? What if it's only a thumbnail of an image? Is a flag still a flag if it's only 10 pixels wide? What if it's a physical flag sewn from cloth, but it's only an inch wide? What if it's only a millimeter wide? What about if I print the flag out on a sheet of paper using my inkjet printer, and then I write on it? What if I print text excerpts from Mein Kampf on top it, and then burn it? Have I destroyed a derivative work, or have I desecrated a flag? Must a flag be made of cloth? What if I burn a large flag made out of some other material? Wood, paper, etc.? Must the flag have exactly the correct colors in order for it to be illegal to burn it? What if the flag is faded? What if the flag is extremely faded? What if the flag has been entirely bleached out? Will desecration of a 2-D flag be illegal? What about a 1-D flag? What about a theoretical 5-D flag? What if I take a picture of a flag, but the flag only occupies 90% of the frame? Is my picture a flag? What if my flag is otherwise normal, but has a spot on it? What if, while a flag is waving on a television, I turn off the television? What if I only slightly char the edge of a flag? What if a flag is already tattered, then can I burn it? If my flag happens to catch on fire, must I collect the ashes and keep them in a flag urn? Will desecration be context-specific? What if I burn a flag while talking about how wonderful the flag is? What if I hold up a flag and talk about hating America?

Well? What is a flag, and what kind of workable law can prevent its desecration?

Posted by Barzelay at 5:35 AM | Comments (11)

May 1, 2006

Stephen Colbert at the WHPC Dinner

Stephen Colbert mocked Bush Saturday night to his face for about 30 minutes at the annual White House Press Corps dinner. While driving down Connecticut Ave that night, I was forced to stop and wait for about three minutes for some well-dressed waspy types to be escorted across the street to the event by police officers, so I'm glad something good came out of it. Bush had to just sit there with a stupid grin on his face, not quite managing to hold in his contempt for Colbert, while Colbert blasted him.

Why they allowed Colbert to do that routine, right in front of Bush, is pretty incomprehensible to me, but wow! It is hilarious. He stayed in character the whole time, acting as if he loved Bush, while obviously lambasting everything about him. He also mocked the press at their own celebratory dinner, thanking them for failing to ask the tough questions or investigate anything the President did. As a result, the mainstream press has boycotted Colbert's routine, instead running stupid stories about the act that preceded Colbert where Bush got on stage with a Bush impersonator. That bit was mildly humorous (if you download the file using the torrent below, you'll have that, too), but Colbert's speech was one of the most newsworthy things to happen this year, and it is being blacked out. The Press Corps wants the President at future annual dinners, and the Press also don't like being mocked, so they're not reporting on it. Such blatant bias. Everyone needs to watch this. Some of my favorite lines:

• "If anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail."
• "So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
• "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."
• "Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
• "Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write, "Oh, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!"
• "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
• "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction."

This is one of the ballsiest things I've seen in a long time. Welcome to the no-fly list, Stephen Colbert. Here is a transcript, but if you can, you should really watch the video:

• Crooks and liars (doesn't have the whole thing)
• YouTube: Part 1, 2, 3
• Torrent (has act before Colbert, too)

From BoingBoing, Slashdot, DailyKos, EditorAndPublisher

Posted by Barzelay at 5:06 AM | Comments (8)

March 22, 2006

Personality and Politics

A new study indicates that whiny, insecure children grow up to be conservatives, while confident children grow up to be liberals.

The study was done on one-hundred Berkeley-area children over a period of twenty years, so it could be that whiny children grow up to be the opposite of whatever the prevailing adult political attitudes are. Either way, it's interesting. And until that different result is shown in another study, we liberals can taunt the conservatives like the confident bullies we are. At least until they go complaining to the teacher.

Posted by Barzelay at 10:10 PM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2006

Cheney's Got A Gun

The Vice President shot a guy in a hunting accident today! Wow. But the best part of the article is this revelation:

"Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there and probably more cautious than we would have been," she said. "The vice president has got an ambulance on call, so the ambulance came."

Yeah, in case Cheney, like, dies again, or something. Anyway, at least the guy wasn't hurt too badly. Thanks, Joel.

Posted by Barzelay at 4:50 PM | Comments (4)

February 6, 2006

Zhubin On Bush

Zhubin has posted a commentary on the addition of Alito and the current state of the nation that puts a lot of things very succintly and pointedly. If it were written for their side, it's the kinda thing Republicans would put in a chain letter and send, grandma-to-sunday-school-teacher-to-grandma. I'm linking to it, and reposting the best sections. It's also the kinda thing Carl would post as a Myspace bulletin and then make some snarky comment about all liberals being sissy girly-men who don't eat red meat or something.

I'm even less happy about the NSA wiretapping scandal; I know I say this every other week, but I don't even know how people can support this President anymore. Talking to his supporters feels like giving a lecture to a 10-year-old about the basics of American democracy. Have you guys had to deal with someone telling you that the President has the power to ignore laws that inhibit his ability to protect the country? What do you say to that? Do you sit down and explain that our government is founded on the idea that the Executive Branch can't be trusted to make those determinations, that we have a judicial branch for that very reason? That our government is structured so that, when the President wants to spy on you, he at least has to give someone else a reason for why he's doing it? You might as well teach them about the two chambers of Congress.

What's even more frustrating is the people who say they don't like what Bush is doing with the wiretapping but still support him. Sweet Jesus, guys, what's it gonna take? The President breaks the law and spies on citizens without a court order, and you still think, "Well, let's not rush to judgment just yet"? Does it not at least add up to the lying about WMDs, the lying about the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link, the jumping into war with Iraq, the corrupt management of the Iraq war, the corrupt management of Afghanistan, the horrible response to Katrina, the bribery of media pundits, the fake White House press correspondents, the fake news outlets to Iraq, the Plame scandal, the Abramoff scandal, the torturing, the secret prisons, the silencing of professional scientists for political reasons, the appointment of incompetent political friends to important government position, the detaining of innocent Americans for years on end without charges? What more does he have to do before you lose your favorable opinion of him? Does he have to quarter soldiers right in your bedroom? Do they have to tear down your DMB poster and eat your Ritz crackers, and point at your family photographs and make fun of your slightly chubby sister? What needs to happen!?

Posted by Barzelay at 2:52 PM | Comments (2)

January 31, 2006

State Of The Union Drinking Game

You are on TEAM (AMERICA/IRAQ). Every time Bush says (“Iraq”/"America") cheer loudly for your team and take a drink in honor of that great nation. Your most hated foe is Team (America/Iraq). Boo Team (America/Iraq)!

Pre-Speech

Subtract the number of colors Bush is wearing from the number of colors you are wearing, and take that many drinks. If the result is negative, you may assign those drinks to others.

(1) if at any point, someone in the room can point out a type of makeup Bush is wearing.

(1) for every hand Bush is seen shaking before and after his address. If you are the first person to identify his hand-shaking partner by name, you can instead assign your drink to someone else.

(1) for every flag that can be seen at the podium.

(F) if Bush's tie is neither solid nor striped (i.e. paisley or other pattern)

Mid-Speech

(1) every time he mentions his opposition as "some people," "some individuals," "certain people," or "certain individuals."

(1) every time Bush makes a gesture that requires taking both hands off the lectern.

(1) if he mentions immigration.
If what he says causes both Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch to stand up and/or applaud, you must take a drink of an inappropriately mixed drink (i.e. wine and beer, whiskey and milk, etc.). This can be accomplished by taking a drink of one thing and then, before swallowing, drinking another thing.

(1) each time Bush sounds like he’s admitting a mistake or apologizing for a failure.
(2) if he is not, in fact, admitting anything or apologizing.

(1) when he uses the word "strong."
(F) if he is referring to Cheney's pulse.

(1) when he uses the word "life."
(2) if used with a meaningless catch phrase such as "sanctity of life," or "culture of life."
You needn't drink if you can quickly come up with a meaningless catch phrase of your own containing life and say it aloud.

(1) when he mentions "our children."
(2) if coverage cuts to shot of the twins.

1) every time Bush mispronounces a word.
(2) if he stumbles over it, pauses to collect himself, and then still mispronounces it.

(1) every time a likely candidate for President in the 2008 elections is shown.
(2) if the likely candidate is shown posturing by expressing either obvious disapproval or approval with his facial expression or mannerisms.
(3) if he is shaking his head, "no," and frowning.
The first person to come up with a catchy campaign slogan for this person and say it aloud needn't drink.

(1) for "John Roberts" or "Sam/Samuel Alito."
(2) if they are then shown.
(3) if their families are also shown.
(F) your beverage if Alito's wife is crying, or if Roberts' son at any point does not look like he will one day snort lots of coke at Yale.

(2) for every person he mentions who has at some point been referred to as "bin Laden's #2 in charge," "bin Laden's right-hand man," "al Qaeda's #2 man," "al Qaeda's top person in Iraq."

(2) if he mentions Harriet Miers.
(3) if she is shown.
(F) if, when pictured, she does not look like Skeletor.

(2) for every one drink Bush takes.
(3) for every drink he takes if, by group consensus, you suspect that he has fallen off the wagon again and it is actually vodka he is drinking.

(3) if he mentions intelligent design.
This can be lessened to one drink if you imitate a monkey immediately afterward. If, by group consensus, anyone’s imitation does not remind the group of Bush himself, everyone must finish their beverage.

(F) if Bush says the name of your home state, or the name of a city in your home state. Only do this once, even if he mentions it multiple times—we can’t have Louisianans dying on us.

(F) if Laura Bush is pictured not smiling.

Every time he says "freedom" you take a drink of whatever you’ve chosen to pour for yourself. Every time he mentions Iraq you must unilaterally take a drink of someone else's drink, even if you know that they aren’t really in possession of WMDs.

Any time Jenna Bush is shown, the first five people to yell out a distinct type of liquor get to choose someone else to drink.

Every time Bush says, “terror,” “terrorist,” or “terrorism,” Zeeshan chooses five people to drink.

Democrats drink when he mentions:
Today’s confirmation
The nation is on the right track
“Obstructionist”
We are at war
Tort reform or liability reform
God
Prayer

Non-Democrats drink when he mentions:
Activist judges
Texas
His ranch
“the situation” in Iraq
Reconstruction efforts
FEMA
Weapons of mass destruction (two drinks if abbreviated as WMD’s)

Posted by Barzelay at 6:06 PM | Comments (1)

January 26, 2006

"Meet The World" Flags Campaign

Icaro Doria is a Brazilian who started a campaign that has been circulating depicting the flags of various countries, with colors keyed to certain truths about the countries. It's quite harrowing.

Link from Amanda.

Posted by Barzelay at 12:55 PM | Comments (1)

October 4, 2005

Political Tabula Rasa

So Bush has nominated Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. It's a strange pick, and one that no one seems to be wild about. The reaction from everyone seems to just be head scratching.

But she didn't come from the judiciary!

First, there's the complaint about her lack of judicial experience. She has not served as a judge. Everyone's up in arms because they can't go through her old opinions and decide whether or not they'll like her. But this is a very modern concern that is out of touch with the history of the court. Until the 70's, it was very common for Supreme Court justices to come from the legislature, executive administration, or even academia. In fact, since 1933, ten of 34 nominees have come from the executive branch.

It's only in the last thirty years that appellate judges have been seen as the only options. In fact, guess which justice was the last to be nominated without first having served as a judge? Rehnquist. And some extremely notable justices have in the past come from elsewhere, including Felix Frankfurter (great name), Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, Hugo Black, and William Douglas.

Having now experienced about two months of law school, it seems to me a very short leap from practicing law (at least, as a general counsel, or some other unspecialized practice) to judging. All law students and lawyers read and interpret statutes and common law opinions, particularly precedential cases. Based on those precedents, they decide how current issues will play out. That's the same as judging. I could see an argument if she had been highly specialized as a bankruptcy attorney or something for the last twenty years, or Bush's press secretary, but she was his counsel, a.k.a. top staff lawyer. All she did was read precedent and make recommendations on how current decisions would play out. At least as regards this complaint, I think she's not necessarily unqualified.

But it's an example of extreme cronyism!

The next thing about which everyone is complaining, both the right and the left, is how much the nomination stinks of cronyism. Harriet Miers was Bush's personal attorney for years, and has followed him up the ladder. And yeah, the whole thing does stink. Tim Boyd proposed a Slant article about how the next Bush pick would be something ridiculous like his longtime housekeeper Consuela (and he'd get to nominate the first hispanic). It certainly would have been difficult for him to pick anyone closer to him than Miers besides, perhaps, Gonzales.

The fact that is so obviously cronyistical (I anticipate 'crony' being adopted to many new parts of speech over the next month, and I just wanted to get that ball rolling) makes the nomination assailable from both sides. Conservatives aren't happy. People recognize this for what it is. If Democrats were to mount a strong attack and start to get the public at all vocal about it, it is highly possible that conservatives would also start to reject the pick.

But she isn't even a conservative!

We don't really know what she is, philosophically. She was a democrat until fifteen or so years ago. She has, in the past, professed support for gays and lesbians to have full civil rights, and has been in support of increased funding/aid for AIDS related stuff. She voted for property tax increases while on the Dallas City Council. She supports the establishment and development of an international criminal court. She thinks sexual orientation should not be a bar to adoption. And she donated money to the Al Gore Presidential campaign and several other Democrats' political campaigns in 1987 and 1988.

Nevertheless, it seems that she is generally moderate. Most of her private practice involved pro-business work. My impression is that she was quite moderate, and then sided with the Republicans when it looked like she had something to gain by aligning herself with her client, Bush.

And if we really need proof that she can't be all that bad, just look how pissed off the conservative talking heads are about the nomination. Rush Limbaugh is pissed, Michelle Malkin is pissed, David Frum, who knows her well, isn't happy, Instapundit is unhappy...

When those people are unhappy with a political situation, it usually means we should be happy about it.

But this nomination just reflects Bush's current political weakness!

Yeah, this move does reflect his weakness. He couldn't nominate an extreme conservative, knowing it would a huge fight for confirmation that he can't afford right now with his lowest approval rating yet, Katrina crap, our military occupation of Iraq going poorly, scandals in the Republican party, etc.

"I do see this as a response to a weakened political situation, a willingness to do what it takes to maximize his influence," said longtime Bush watcher Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas.

What should the Dems do?

This is the really interesting point. I think the Republicans are currently weak enough, the Democrats currently strong enough, the public fed up enough, and the candidate weak enough that the Democrats could defeat this nomination. But do we want to?

First of all, by the small amount of information we have, she seems much more moderate than anyone else we thought he might nominate. She actually seems like not too bad of a pick for liberals, all things considered. Everything I've heard about her makes her seem like a less-intelligent but similarly-opinioned Sandy O. If we did get her rejected, who would be the next nomination? Almost surely someone worse for liberals.

So what's the advantage to us quashing the nom? Well, mainly that it would severely weaken Bush. If the public wasn't behind the nomination (and I think such a zeitgeist could be made), and the Democrats were unified against it, a lot of Republicans would have to start to defect like they had to with the social security plan. They have to be reelected some time. If we managed to kill the nomination, I think it would mean not only that Bush would lose his power, but that all of the current field of Republican candidates that are seen as part of Bush's posse (Frist, Santorum, etc) would also lose a lot of power, and, likely, their chance at the Presidency.

This would mean we'd have a more moderate Republican candidate up against a strengthened Democratic party. If we still lose, then we would have lost anyway, but then it's a more moderate Republican that would win.

But again, the next nominee would probably be someone we'd be less happy with, and we'd almost certainly have to give them an easy nominaton so as to not just look like obstructionists.

What to do, what to do? I say, based on what we know so far, confirm her. She doesn't seem so bad. But we'll see what else comes out about her.

Posted by Barzelay at 5:02 PM | Comments (2)

September 20, 2005

Nation needs bathroom break from Bush

This has been all over the blogs, and is way late by now, but I still haven't seen anyone in my circle post about it. So, on the off-chance that any of you don't read any hard news blogs (and I mean hard news in the broadest possible sense--including Wonkette, etc), I'm posting it. I think it's hilarious.

Bush wrote and passed the following memo to Condi during a UN Security Council meeting last week: "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?"

First of all, poop is funny. Second, it's funny that Bush doesn't know enough about the U.N. Security Council to know whether or not he can take a bathroom break. Third, is Condi his mommy or what?

Apparently, the photographer is taking a lot of flak for this being supposedly disrespectful to the President or whatever. I'm not a huge privacy nut in the first place, but I definitely think that the higher up in public office one gets, the less one has an expectation or right to privacy. If the government were as transparent as I'd like, the White House would have shower cams and the WHPC would have daily briefings on the status of the President's bowels.

Posted by Barzelay at 3:46 PM | Comments (2)

September 14, 2005

Perfect way of fighting back against the religious fruitcakes

I love creative political action.

Someone's come up with a great way to fight back against the anti-choice protestors who gather outside abortion clinics to harass the patients and block the doors and such. They are getting donors to pledge money to Planned Parenthood per anti-choice protestor that shows up at their particular location. Then when the protestors show up, they tell them exactly how much they are helping Planned Parenthood by showing up and protesting. The more they protest, the more funding Planned Parenthood gets.

Brilliant way to fight back. Well done, sirs. Also, read this Onion article, "Bush Nominates First-Trimester Fetus To Supreme Court."

Posted by Barzelay at 1:40 PM | Comments (2)

Links to make love to.

• I love when celebrities make political statements. No sarcasm, I really do. Damon Wayans on the possible reinstatement of a military draft: "I'll send my sons [to Iraq] if [Bush] sends his daughters. Put those two drunk bitches on a plane and let them go fight. At least I know my sons would be getting some on the way."
• Cardboard box art. Super cool.
• Google will answer your text message queries. Driving directions, movie times, etc. Text "GOOGL" (46645) something like "120 F St NW, Washington, DC to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC" and they'll reply, giving you driving directions from Georgetown Law to the White House.
• ArsTechnica and Wired are carrying two stories saying that all you suckers with iPods and personal music players are going deaf!
• Yeah, let's all teach our children that eroding civil liberties and a gradual descent into an oppressive military state is fun! Who would buy this toy, and why? This is so disturbing. Next they'll be selling the Fisher Price Enemy Combatant Cell™, and the LEGO® Technic Warrantless Wiretap Kit!
• Tivo has caved to content-industry pressure to add broadcast flag protection to their latest update. Yep, this new OS update adds a "feature" that makes it so that you can't save certain shows past a certain date if the networks don't want you to. How is it in Tivo's interest to add this? This basically makes their product useless. Here's a screenshot. The "Betamax" decision, affirmed many times since, settled that Americans have the right to record television shows even if the copyright holder doesn't want them to. Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1984). There is no copyholder right to a limited shelf-life of those recordings. BoingBoing posts about alternatives to Tivo.
• Google launched a Blog Search tool. At first glance, it doesn't seem all that useful, lacking the huge wealth of features at, for instance, Technorati (which is a very cool site, but I don't find use for anyway). Hopefully this just means Google will be indexing blogs more often. They've got my latest posts on there, one day after my posting them, so that's better than normal Google used to be.
• Another instance of silly pet owners. You should get a pet dry room, which uses infrared radiation to dry your pet off and prevent pet skin rash. These "doggie microwaves," as I like to call them, are clearly super necessary. I am considering putting up a separate category of posts here on my blog stricly for silly pet owner links. Something like Joel Hart's apparently trademarked "There's No Fruitcake Like A Religious Fruitcake" stuff.
• In the grand Zork style (the original Zork trilogy is now downloadable for free from Infocom, by the way) comes Shakespeare's Hamlet, the text-based adventure game!

Posted by Barzelay at 12:45 PM | Comments (2)

September 13, 2005

If Links Were Nickels, I'd Have $0.55

• Have these people never seen Dr. Strangelove? New Pentagon doctrine gives President the power to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
• Could we perhaps control hurricanes, or at least limit their power? These particular ideas don't seem all that do-able, but the possibility of large-scale intentional influence on the weather is intriguing.
• Read about some guy's assessment of The Ten Stupidest Utopias.
• Gay activists are creating a website listing the names and addresses of all the people who signed the petition calling for a Massachusetts ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. I think this is very legitimate and fair: actions or statements whose intent is to influence the public law should be made publicly.
• Attempts by FEMA and the White House to block media coverage of the dead have ended, after a courageous (though profit-seeking) effort by CNN to fight those attempts. Why should the government be able to restrict media coverage of the dead in this, or in Iraq? Utterly against our principle of a free press.
• Some interesting laser photos.
• Does disaster always lead to increased assertion of authority, and decreased civil liberties?
• I've never liked Coheed And Cambria before, but their absurdly titled new album, "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through The Eyes Of Madness," sounds like a cross between The Nixons, Ted Leo, and Rush. It sounds completely different from their older stuff, and I really like it, and recommend it (minus a couple tracks that are missteps).

Posted by Barzelay at 1:24 AM | Comments (4)

Bill Maher on why Bush should quit

Bill Maher on why Bush should quit, as transcribed by Jason Schulz:

"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.

"Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

"But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

"On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

"So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.'"

Posted by Barzelay at 1:20 AM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2005

Roberts Confirmation Hearings

Confirmation hearings are boring, even by C-SPAN standards. Once they get into the meat and potatoes (the questions), it should get better. But the Senators opening statements are super boring. Let me summarize:

Specter (R): Welcome everyone. Roberts, don't answer any questions.
Leahy (D): Roberts, you better answer the questions.
Cornyn (R): Roberts, don't take the bait. Keep quiet.
Kennedy (D): Roberts, I hope you answer the questions, or it'll get ugly.
Hatch (R): Roberts, keep your goddamned mouth shut.
Feinstein (D): Roberts, I have a vagina, so you better answer my questions.
Brownback (R): Stick to the plan and shut up, Roberts.
Biden (D): Talk, see!
Sessions (R): The people of Alabama want you not to talk.
Feingold (D): Bush sucks. Bush sucks. Answer the fucking questions. Bush sucks.
Graham (R): No politician will ever be more likable than me, and I say shut it.
Schumer (D): Me for President! Vote for me! Oh yeah, and answer the questions.

And so on. Except that each of those were 10 minutes long. If anyone stood out, it was Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. He came across as very likeable. He is great on tech issues as well. Probably THE best Senator for tech issues and digital rights. So, I like him bunches. He might be too young to run, and Wisconsin isn't exactly the best state to come from when seeking the Presidency, but I like the guy.

Posted by Barzelay at 2:12 PM | Comments (2)

August 2, 2005

Re: Abortion

I wanted to clarify my last post. Normally I won't repost just for clarification, but this is a special case.

Contrary to what a lot of people got from last post, I am not "pro-life." In fact I am definitely pro-choice.

My point was just that I am not going to vehemently and categorically defend the pro-choice position, because I do not feel that it is an ethically simple (categorically sound) position. The pro-life folks do, I feel, have an ethically sound position--I just don't agree with it. Despite my not being able to find what I see as a consistent ethical position in support of a right to abortion, I am nevertheless in support of it. But let me make a quick and barebones case for the ethics that I do apply to the issue:

»» Continue reading "Re: Abortion"

Posted by Barzelay at 12:30 AM | Comments (3)

July 30, 2005

Frist becomes slightly less ridiculous?

Bill Frist has changed his stance on stem cell research, with Senator Frist now supporting a bill for increased funding of stem cell research. The article contains a lot of pretty funny stuff:

Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters

Yeah, since he proved so spot-on with his Schiavo analysis.

"I am pro-life"
"An embryo is nascent human life"
"I believe human life begins at conception"
BUT then, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported"... ... "

Anyway, funny to point out, but it actually makes more sense in context. The bill supports funding for stem cell research only on stem cell lines extracted from embryos that would have been discarded anyway.

I think stem cell research should definitely be encouraged and funded, but I appreciate the compromise on this position. It will not be a problem to obtain all the stem cells researchers want from embryos already slated for "destruction" (their word), and yet it also doesn't lead to any "nascent human life" being "killed" that wouldn't have met a similar fate otherwise.

Unlike a lot of my fellow liberals, I don't feel all that strongly about legalized abortion. It's not that I think abortion is necessarily wrong, it's just that I've devoted a whole lot of thought to it and can't come up with a consistent ethical position that allows for abortion but doesn't have a lot of other problems. Basically, the trouble is, I don't think abortion's wrong, but I don't see how I can hold that view and not think that it's also alright to kill undesirable babies after they are born. Strictly working from my ethics, I'm not sure that doing so would be wrong, but it's pretty tough to accept that.

On the other hand, I can very easily conceive of a consistent ethical position that disallows abortion. The trouble is, it's just not the position I hold.

So, because I cannot claim what I see as a consistent and defensible ethical position allowing abortion and not allowing other things I'm not sure I want to allow, I don't claim all that strong feelings or argue too much about how I think abortion should be legal. In other words, I see their point.

I definitely don't see it as being an issue of women's control over their bodies, or privacy, or anything like that. In fact, I've argued before (though I'm also not sure about this--tons of problems in practice) that the male parent should have the right to block an abortion even if the woman desires it, as long as he is willing to accept full financial and custodial responsibility of the child, permanently. But no one need point out the many problems with this position, since they are quite obvious.

Anyway... let's just avoid the normal debate about abortion and stem cell research here since I'm sure we've all heard everything any of us could say before. Any discussion should be strictly based on ethics and framed in the terms of an ethical (not a moral) debate.

Posted by Barzelay at 3:50 AM | Comments (11)

July 18, 2005

A Much Smaller Cornucopia Of Political Links

• Hustler columnist (and good friend of mine) Michael Wilt was famous around Vanderbilt for rewriting Republican talking points as columns. He's been doing more of the same on his blog now for several months. Very recently, he has begun renovating his site, the upshot of which is that Michael Wilt's blog now supports commenting! This is potentially one of the best sources of fun that has come along for me in years! Now, liberal hordes, attack! But do so civilly, and no name-calling. Like me, he's always up for a good debate.
• Via Wonkette, there is a very, very interesting NYT article about how Democrats are starting to get better at communicating with the public. How are they doing this? By sticking to talking points. The article says that the Democrats won the filibuster thing and are winning the social security reform thing because they are repeating the same phrases over and over again, towing the party line, and sticking to their talking points. This is called "framing" the debate. We are learning to control the language of the debates. Our failure to do that is why we've been losing. The Republicans do it all the time. They make sure there is no dissent in the party, and they repeat their catch phrases until everyone is forced to debate everything on their terms.

  While I think what the article says is true, I also think it's sad that we have to be as mindless, watered down, monolothic, and conformist as the Republicans or else people are too dumb to understand us. This all relates to what I mentioned the other day about manipulating the public by controlling the language of the media.

• On a related note, the LA Times has an article about how Republicans' party unity and media manipulation are making them lose big on the [Rove|Leak|Plame|Wilson]gate thing. Again, dissent is a good thing. Shouldn't Republicans be just as concerned about this whole thing as Democrats? Why aren't they asking more tough questions of Rove, DeLay, McClellan? Should closing ranks and huddling around their wounded take precedence over curbing ethical abuses and making sure they don't keep happening?
• Unsurprisingly, the US was planning to control the Iraqi elections. It angers me greatly, though I know we've been doing this sort of thing for many years, that the US would even consider backing certain candidates in foreign elections. And the whole time his people were debating how best to ensure that their hand-picked candidates won, Bush was squawking about how great it was that Iraq was having "free elections," and would finally have a "government of the people." Disgusting.
• The FBI is collecting large files on organizations critical of the Bush administration, such as the ACLU and Greenpeace. There could be "an innocuous explanation... like preserving requests from or complaints about the groups in agency files." But some are charging that the FBI is conducting political surveillance in order to stifle voices critical of the administration: Is the information collected (ostensibly in order to make sure protests remain civil) instead being used to stifle the protests and dull their impact, resulting in first amendment violations?

  "Protest groups charge that F.B.I. counterterrorism officials have used their expanded powers since the Sept. 11 attacks to blur the line between legitimate civil disobedience and violent or terrorist activity in what they liken to F.B.I. political surveillance of the 1960's."

• And another from the LA Times, about how atheists are powerless in today's hyper-religious political climate. Also check out the brazenly named No God Blog. Yay, atheists!

Posted by Barzelay at 8:33 PM | Comments (0)

Dykes On Bikes Get Fucked

Ever heard me ranting about how terrible the USPTO is? Well, here's another bit of evidence, via Jason's post on LawGeek, that has nothing to do with my other complaints (mostly patent-related). The patent office has rejected an application for a trademark for "Dykes On Bikes," finding it patently offensive. Is this phrase obviously offensive to everyone? Clearly not, if there are people wanting to refer to themselves this way. At least the internet isn't so oppressive. Also, here's a nice discussion on BoingBoing, and here is a real news article about it.

The Dykes on Bikes are a group of lesbian bikers who ride at the front of a lot of Pride parades, and have been doing so for many years. Their name is an example of a group taking ownership of a pejorative term (i.e. womyn calling themselves "cunts", black people calling themselves "niggers", etc.). The idea is that taking ownership of it, proudly claiming those terms, severly blunts their negative impact.

But the USPTO doesn't see that. Instead, it is obvious that they are moralizing here; there are lots of trademarks containing "nigga," one containing "nigger," and a ton containing "NWA" (not all of which are related to the rap group). The USPTO doesn't even require a member of the public to object to the mark, the decision was made by some application examiner.

"The examining attorney found it to be offensive to a significant portion of the lesbian community," said Jessie Roberts, a trademark administrator with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. "And we're also looking out for the sensitivities of the general public more than that of a specific applicant."

How do they know what's offensive to the gay community? Anyway, I find "Focus On The Family" offensive. Why should that be allowed to exist? Offense shouldn't be grounds for not granting a trademark, and even if it is, that decision shouldn't be made by a USPTO officer. Offensiveness is just too subjective and variant to rely on. And anyway, that has nothing to do with the purpose of trademarks, which is to protect consumers from brand confusion. In my mind, and though I'm not a rabid free-market advocate, the only solution to this problem lies in the market. If some business or group is offensive, don't patronize them. But we shouldn't not let them exist.

Posted by Barzelay at 4:38 AM | Comments (1)

July 13, 2005

Wesley Clark on fighting terrorism

USA Today printed a letter by Wesley Clark yesterday about how to fight terrorism.

He's got some good points, especially:

• Taking out the "state sponsors" of terrorism (governments and powerful people friendly to terrorists) will not work, since terrorism is becoming more and more decentralized.
• We must fight the ideology, not just the current terrorists.

The most poignant thing in the article (and the only real admission of this fact I've heard yet by anyone with any sort of power in this country) was

But fighting terrorism at home isn't just a matter of "killing terrorists." Terrorists aren't born that way. They are created by their interaction with their surroundings. To win this war, we must defeat the ideology of terrorism, depriving angry young people of their ability to justify their hateful actions in the name of Allah.

Posted by Barzelay at 5:53 PM | Comments (0)

Ah, I See...

From Greg Saunders at This Modern World, the second half of this post clarified for me exactly what was so bad about Plame being outed. Prior to this, I was basically thinking, "Okay, so they lied, but hey... they do that all the time. What's so bad about this one?" Now I understand a little better the consequences of the leak for national security (although I have very little respect for the institution of "national security" and its abilities to do anything worthwhile even if unhindered).

Posted by Barzelay at 6:12 AM | Comments (1)

How To Communicate With Congress

Via Jason at Law Geek, this chart from Congressional Management Foundation shows what info is helpful to include when writing to your congressperson. Next time you're going to email or snail mail your rep (you do contact your elected officials, don't you?) check this chart to see if you can perhaps make your letter more effective.

Posted by Barzelay at 6:00 AM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2005

Draft-dodging article

I don't really put much stock in the arguments forwarded by this article on a possible upcoming draft (they say there is a lot of preparation being done to plan for a draft, despite urgings from the admin that there will be no draft). It's interesting reading, but honestly, I'm only posting this to archive the following paragraph so I can find it again when I'm in some argument some time. It catalogues some of the more blatant and large-scale absurdities espoused by this administration.

As for Bush and Rummy, keep in mind that they’re the guys who told us they had no plans to invade Iraq (they did), that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (there weren’t), that the invasion and occupation would be a cakewalk (it hasn’t been), that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers (they didn’t), that the mission was “accomplished” two years ago (it wasn’t), that 160,000 new Iraqi security forces are fully trained and ready to take over for U.S. troops (they aren’t), and that our coalition of allies remains strong (it doesn't).

Posted by Barzelay at 10:32 PM | Comments (0)

July 11, 2005

Apt comparison by Senator Clinton

Hillary Clinton told a crowd during a speech,

"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington."

The former first lady drew a laugh from the crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Neuman's catch phrase: "What, me worry?"

I think that was a very funny, but very apt comparison. The short-term politically expedient thing is for the party in power to make it appear like everything is fine, and the party not in power to make it seem like the whole world is headed straight for destruction. But on the whole, it is very counterproductive to the general good, because the reality is usually somewhere in between.

The thing that most annoys me about this is all the noise about the Democratic party being "angry and adrift." The trouble is, in media, if you say it enough, people really do believe it's true, even if it has nothing to do with reality. There's nothing wrong with anger at the opposite party, and being adrift is sort of a natural consequence of losing a lot of ground in recent years. But the party being characterized solely as "angry and adrift," "lacking ideas," "defeatist," and all of that is just mindless repetition of negative-sounding descriptors. It just backs up the comparison of the President to Alfred E. Neuman. They've both got their catch phrases:

"Activist judges"
"Culture of life"
"Obstructionists"
"Lessons of September 11"
"War on terrorism"
"They hate our freedom"
"We're making progress"
"Up or down vote"
"Fair and balanced"

And so on. The whole party parrots those phrases all over the media no matter how meaningless and hypocritical they are. The worst part? Americans are actually so complacent that if they hear them enough, they believe them to be true. We need to get away from a political culture of catch phrases. If the Democrats were better at media manipulation, we'd be doing the same thing ("No plan to win the peace"), and it's all disgusting. Can we get some real debate? Like the antithesis of Hannity, O'Reilly, and all that crap?

Posted by Barzelay at 8:03 PM | Comments (1)

Links to things.

A Fox News reporter made a funny error exposing his bigotry. Captured thanks to Google Video. Yay google.

"That these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular--of nonarab people living in London."

Via Boing Boing, Check out some cool sparkler photographs.

Swimmers in Scotland's biggest triathlon will be swimming in Loch Ness. Organizers of the triathlon are insuring every swimmer for £1 million against the Loch Ness monster. Via BoingBoing.net

The European Parliament again wisely rejected a proposal to provide for software patents in the EU. A funny side-story, though, is the lobbying that went on outside the halls: For instance, this naval battle that pitted a pro-patent lobbying group against anti-patent protestors. From Jason Schulz of the EFF at lawgeek.typepad.com.

I saw this a week ago or so, but just getting around the posting it. Check out this Flash game, in which a woman falls endlessly through a bubble filled void, bouncing around according to life-like physics. When she gets stuck (or any time, really), click on her and drag her around.

Bi now, gay later? From Joel at Not That comes a link to a study suggesting that bisexuality is nearly nonexistent in men.

From Jacob at jacobgrier.com/blog, check out the story of a guy suing famous magicians, claiming they are using powers granted to him by God to perform their magic. "David Blaine has been using my godly powers to perform his magic. This is a labor dispute in accordance with Minn Statute 179.06 for past/future commission compensation."

This piece on the Amish and technology, specifically about their acceptance of the cell-phone, is a very good read. From Wired.

This piece suggests that it is the conservative judges that are the activists, at least according to a certain definition of activism. "...we've identified one reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism... How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?" Not really the best definition, but an interesting read nonetheless. From CJR Daily via Not That.

A Nashville couple has pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor after hiring a stripper for their son's 16th birthday party. From www.not-that.com (Joel).

Posted by Barzelay at 1:45 AM | Comments (0)

July 9, 2005

Oliver Stone Making 9/11 Film

Oliver Stone is making a movie about 9/11! For those unfamiliar, Oliver Stone is like the Michael Moore of narrative filmmaking. He's made such politically charged, controversial, critical films as JFK, Nixon, Platoon, Heaven And Earth, Born On The Fourth Of July, Wall Street, Salvador, and Natural Born Killers. I definitely think he is one of the strongest voices in film today, and he's one of my favorite directors. But I am often frustrated by the fact that he has stayed away from making the kind of intimate but visceral explorations of unremarkable people that Peckinpah did with Straw Dogs, Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, and The Wild Bunch. Instead Stone's middle and recent career has been all very big biopic or conspiracy films, and while sometimes gripping and always interesting, they've lacked in humanity. So, depending on how he treats this, it could be just the thing I've been looking for from Oliver Stone: a more intimate story where everyday people are put in extraordinary situations.

I don't know what to think of this. Stone has been extremely critical of Bush in the past, even saying "He's worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what the president is supposed to be. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it." I can't believe Stone would make something like this without it being very political. On the other hand, he is also a veteran, and basically obsessed with war and with military history. So though he is extremely liberal, he might be a bit more in line with the war hawks here.

I guess I'd love to see the narrative version of Fahrenheit 9/11 (though, for the record, I did not like Fahrenheit 9/11 very much at all). But in the end, I think it would be better to show the small story here. If he can evoke the larger context by portraying a more intimate struggle, I think it could be very effective. He has all the right people behind him on this one, so it looks at least like he'll have an easy time getting this one made, not like many of his pictures.

Who knows? If it turns out to be ultra-political, ultra-critical, it'll still be fun to argue about.

Posted by Barzelay at 7:21 PM | Comments (1)

July 8, 2005

Even Pat Robertson endorses condom use!

According to this NYT column, Pat Robertson has sided with the leftist anti-religionists (read: anyone rational) in promoting condom availability, education, and use in African nations struggling with staggering numbers of people contracting AIDS. He's not just pure evil with good intentions!

Posted by Barzelay at 3:46 AM | Comments (0)

July 5, 2005

New Google Bomb for the french

You know that Google Bomb where you type in "French Military Victories" and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky," and it takes you to a fake 404 page where it asks, "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"

Well, I was just inspired by this post from edemynag to change it. So, here it is... the start of a new Google bomb (that will never catch on): French Military Victories.

To help with the Google bomb, link to this page with the link text being "French Military Victories." Like so:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_war">French Military Victories</a>

Posted by Barzelay at 11:34 PM | Comments (0)

July 2, 2005

MTV Broadcasts Live8

Live8 is today, and MTV is broadcasting it all day (albeit with commercial breaks). It's things like this that remind me how much I like MTV. I mean, sure, they never play music anymore, their shows are terrible and exploitative reality television, and they cater to idiotic thirteen year-olds. But they also have a social conscience, and I love that.

»» Continue reading "MTV Broadcasts Live8"

Posted by Barzelay at 4:53 PM | Comments (1)

July 1, 2005

Supreme Court Replacements

So, who's your pick as her successor? Of the ones mentioned (almost all of whom are terrible) I like Alex Kozinski, though it seems unlikely that he'd be nominated, especially since he wasn't born in the US, and conservatives hate foreigners. Michael Luttig seems to me like a very confirmable judge, though I don't see anything special about him. Theodore Olson seems a reasonable choice. The rest scare me.

And the talk on the hill says Rehnquist is going to resign as well, he just wanted to let O'Connor do it first. That would leave two vacancies. If that is the case, here is the angle I take on the strategies of the parties:

The Democrats can't block both appointments. They have to pick one. If they try to block both, they come off as just being obstructionist, and to be fair, that is one of the privileges of holding the Presidency--you get to pick the judges if vacancies arise. If the Dems try to block both, they will lose out, nuclear option will be invoked, appointees will get confirmed, and then the Senate comes to a standstill anyway. So, Dems have to pick the less conservative/dangerous of the two, and give him/her an easy and quick confirmation process, with in depth questioning, but nothing too bad, and very soon after, an up-or-down vote. They can go for blocking the other, in the hopes that the President will withdraw the appointment and appoint someone more moderate (which he likely won't, but then he is the one that comes off as obstructionist and too stubborn).

For Bush, knowing that this is the aim the Dems must take, he should nominate two judges, both as conservative as he wants. One of them will get accepted, the other, who knows? If you have to withdraw and appoint someone else, you can appoint someone slightly less extreme, but still very right-wing, who then pretty much has to be confirmed.

Posted by Barzelay at 9:22 PM | Comments (5)

Oh shit.

If you have been thinking about getting an abortion, I advise you to do it now. In a year or so, you quite possibly won't have the option (except for the old hanger trick). So, get to it: impregnate yourself immediately, and seek out an abortion clinic, while you still can. You don't want to die never having aborted a baby.

Posted by Barzelay at 5:21 PM | Comments (2)

Extreme right-wing nonsense sounding like self-parody

This column is one of the most absurd things I've seen in a while. It actually reads like satire. Extreme liberals can be crazy, but they're generally not organized enough to actually have published columns and stuff. Normal liberals are sensible and I love them. Normal conservatives are heartless and backwards, but generally intelligent and reasonable. But extreme conservatives are completely crazy AND mobilized. That's something I've never seen before. Malkin writes:

The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a time of war, when young Americans should be educated about this nation's resilience and steely resolve, educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-sticky lessons on "non-violent conflict resolution" and "promoting constructive dialogues."

"...Just what we need to combat throat-slitting, suicide plane-flying Islamists: young eunuchs swaying to moldy old folk music while their "Peace Place" signs flap in the wind."

Seriously, that column is insane. Read this post from Sadly, No! about it, which is pretty funny. How can anyone think non-violence as an ideal is a bad thing? Non-violence as a goal is not disempowering, and it doesn't mean not defending oneself. But respect and non-violence are never wrong. Even if we have to go to war with a country (which hasn't happened for at least sixty years), we can still respect them. Don't we, in those cases, fight for the hope that at some point we can stop fighting? Shouldn't that be the aim of all wars: Defend ourselves with winning as our aim, so that we can at some point stop fighting? How is it a problem to teach non-violent conflict resolution to children? At the very least, even most right-wingers agree that we should only go to war when we must. It takes a real extremist nutjob to express otherwise.

I guess when Michelle Malkin's children disagree, she'll simply hand them each a shotgun and say, "May the strongest child win." That'll prepare them for their eventual mission of foreigner-killing.

Somewhat unrelated, it occurred to me that if someone started a new political party, The Christian Party, it would have at least thirty percent of the country as members by the next Presidential election. They'd basically be the same as the Republican Party, except that they wouldn't have to disingenuously deny their official religiocracy. They could be completely honest about promoting Christianity and its laws as the standard for legal and moral issues in this country, and in general, I'd probably like them more than the Republicans, because at least they'd be honest about it. Their men would be manly, their women womanly, and they'd take over the country because their women could stay home all day making lobbying phone calls.

Posted by Barzelay at 9:25 AM | Comments (0)

Iran's new President was a terrorist! No, not just because he's Muslim.

This is crazy. Apparently our government just realized Iran's leader was one of the captors at the 1979 embassy takeover, in which fifty-one of our diplomats were held for 444 days. Some of the captives just said they saw pictures of Iran's newly elected President and recognized him as one of their captors. This has to be good for relations.

Posted by Barzelay at 6:07 AM | Comments (3)

Bush Does Read News!

Despite accusations to the contrary, it was revealed today that the President does read the news.

Posted by Barzelay at 2:28 AM | Comments (2)

Ken Mehlman's Jewish Anus

Ken Mehlman, the guy who "respectfully disagrees" with Democrats enough that they made him the chair of the RNC, a man who surprisingly might be gay, has just come out and called himself a zionist, basically also admitting that the rest of the government is as well. Zionism really only says that the Jews deserve to have an autonomous nation, so it isn't going too far, but it goes far enough to be surprising. Very interesting. Yay for gay Jews, even if they are evil Republicans!

Posted by Barzelay at 2:16 AM | Comments (0)

June 23, 2005

Southern Baptist Convention Convention

Reading about this year's SBC convention and its resolutions was the last straw. Their resolution encouraging parents to investigate schools to see whether schools or school groups (run by kids even) are promoting acceptance of homosexuality is ridiculous. And their resolution affirming Republican talking points such as whining about activist judges and no up-or-down votes is heinous. But what really pisses me off is that this resolution commends Senator Bill Frist for "defending the appointment of fair and impartial judges to the federal bench and insisting upon their right to a vote of confirmation by the full Senate."

Today I wrote and mailed a letter officially withdrawing my membership from my old church, First Baptist Church of Dover, FL. I went there for maybe five years during middle school and the first part of high school. Before that I went to First Baptist Church Of Seffner. Neither were bad churches as churches go. In fact they were both on the liberal side of Southern Baptism (ha). My mother is a Baptist and my Dad is an atheist agnostic (of Jewish heritage), so I was raised going to these churches. I started questioning all of it very early (2nd grade or so), and by high school I was completely done with organized religion. It took until I started college for me actually to be willing to say that I didn't believe in God, and even then I hedged it for a while with a "but I do believe in something."

Anyway, if you read the letter you'll see that though FBC Dover isn't a bad church, I don't want to affiliate with a member of and therefore indirectly support the Southern Baptist Convention (or any other religious organization, really). The only remaining downside is that withdrawing from the SBC puts me in such good company as this church.

»» Continue reading "Southern Baptist Convention Convention"

Posted by Barzelay at 5:19 PM | Comments (4)

June 22, 2005

Durbin wusses out

Sissy.

Posted by Barzelay at 6:17 AM | Comments (1)

June 20, 2005

MP at Gitmo treated just like a regular detainee

Wow! This is insane. An MP at Guantanamo Bay volunteered to portray a detainee in a training exercise. He put on an orange jumpsuit and was told to act like an unruly detainee. Meanwhile, a five-man "internal reaction force" was told he had assaulted an officer, and they were not told he was actually a US soldier.

So, during the training exercise, it turns out that the guy got the shit beat out of him, with his head getting repeatedly slammed against a concrete wall, pepper spray, and other shit. He said the "safe word," and kept yelling that he was a US soldier, but they didn't stop until his orange jumpsuit was ripped off of him and they saw his uniform underneath. Now he's suing, saying he has irreversible brain damage, and suffers from seizures, etc. So in other words, that's what they do to regular detainees.

The craziest part? In addition for $15m for rights violations, he's suing for the right to still be able to work in the military. He was in Gitmo because he re-enlisted after serving a tour in the Gulf War. The man clearly had brain damage before the incident.

Posted by Barzelay at 2:01 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2005

F Dubya

This guy in Washington got a license plate that said "F DUBYA" by claiming it was for Florida Western College (which doesn't exist). Then the state DMV canceled the plate because they'd received complaints and realized what it was...

»» Continue reading "F Dubya"

Posted by Barzelay at 4:25 AM | Comments (0)

June 17, 2005

Southern Baptist Resolution and VCR Man

Southern Baptist Convention considers adopting some nutty resolution.

In the article, it says that last year the Southern Baptist Convention considered a resolution to encourage all Southern Baptists to remove their children from public schools.

»» Continue reading "Southern Baptist Resolution and VCR Man"

Posted by Barzelay at 9:33 PM | Comments (0)

Mukhtaran Bibi

Important to get this link around.

Posted by Barzelay at 5:24 AM | Comments (0)

Guantanamo Bay... My Opinion

This is a great exchange between a reporter and Scott McClellan asking McClellan to justify Cheney's recent comment that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes."

As for the whole Guantanamo Bay thing, it seems to me like there is nothing wrong with the prison existing and continuing to exist. I don't support shutting it down. I also DEFINITELY don't support scattering its detainees throughout the normal prison system (or military prisons). The reason? At least right now there is a focal point to the dissatisfaction, outrage, and disgust at not only the way we are treating the detainees, but also the very fact that we are detaining them at all. If we scatter them, they will just rot in cells until the "war on terror" is over (i.e. forever).

»» Continue reading "Guantanamo Bay... My Opinion"

Posted by Barzelay at 2:49 AM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2005

I Heart Tampa!

Yay for Tampa Bay, the least affordable metro area in the US. Yay for our complete lack of public transportation, yay for the city being really spread out and needing a car to get anywhere, yay for it being really hot so everyone spends a bundle on air conditioning, yay for hurricanes, floods, and lightning making our insurance really high. And yay for the delicious Cuban sandwiches, salads, palomilla steak, ropa vieja, picadillo, platanos, Cuban bread, Cuban coffee, carne asado, lechon asado, mojo sauce, and flan that makes it all better.

In other news, getting your driver's side quarter glass window re-sealed because it has a very slight leak costs around $150 at most auto glass shops. On the other hand, having them order a new window with factory tinting, ship it, remove the interior panels blocking the bolts, remove the old window, clean the seal off the body, install the new window, seal the new window, replace the interior panels, and clean-up is $175. Yay for inane pricing!

Arnold Schwarzenegger got booed at a college graduation. I actually agree with his stance on all three of the proposed ballot initiatives, but couldn't it have waited till next year?

Britney Spears is the celebrity most commonly listed in spam emails, narrowly edging out Bill Gates, J-Lo, Shakira, and Osama bin Laden.

LawGeek points to a collection of identically-dressed band members at Hey, Suburbia. He also points to a hilarious old ad for a copyright firm.

Heidi Fleiss is planning to open a brothel in Las Vegas that will be modeled after the White House. Another Vegas company whose building is modeled after the White House is angry, and one of their execs has some funny comments.

This Onion article is great.
Everything That Can Go Wrong Listed
"FULLERTON, CA-A worldwide consortium of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers is nearing the completion of the ambitious, decade-long project of cataloging everything that can go wrong, project leader Dr. Thomas R. Kress announced at a press conference Tuesday."

The things that can go wrong are hilarious. At least look at the graphic that details some of the things that can go wrong.

Posted by Barzelay at 7:30 PM | Comments (0)

June 12, 2005

Nothing Is More Distracting Than White Women

Nothing Is More Distracting Than White Women. Brilliant article on Something Awful's homepage.

Reporter: Oh crap! Like, 60 people died in a car bomb in Jordan!
Reporter #2: Where the hell is Jordan?
News Director: Shut up! There's a blond high school girl missing in Utah, her parents say she COULD be at the mall, but she COULD be getting raped and brutally murdered!
Reporter #1 & #2: GASP!

Posted by Barzelay at 7:02 PM | Comments (0)

June 11, 2005

The DoD Is Officially Christian, Bob Jones Univ Dress Code, Some Quiz

Disgusting. Not in a corpulent or vulgar way. This is disgusting to my sense of decency in a way that fetish porn, injury pictures, or body modification can't even touch.

Selected Passages From The Fred Phelps Bible

Dress code at Bob Jones University. Pretty ridiculous.

Your Political Profile

Overall: 15% Conservative, 85% Liberal

Social Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Posted by Barzelay at 2:07 PM | Comments (0)

June 4, 2005

06/04/2005 08:17:00 AM

That last thing was mostly a joke for one guy on my Israel trip. The rest of the bus might get it too. Anyway, here is the floor plan for my "apartment" at Georgetown next year. I got my last choice besides the single rooms. It's so small.

My roommate is one Ryan Lovin of North Carolina. I googled him and the only thing I could find about him was on that page. Click the "Student Reflections" link on the left column and read the second testimonial. And that's all I know about him. Should I be scared? Tonight I wrote him a ridiculously long, rude, confrontational, and fiercely liberal email. If he can't tolerate cursing, blasphemy, and gay sex with barn animals, then I want to know now so I can request a room change while it's still fashionable. But I'm probably making too big of a deal about this.

But if he is as my fears indicate, I don't understand how I got paired with him. I specifically put that I always drink when I socialize, stay up all night, and hate Christians. Except for the hating Christians part. So, maybe he's a drunken insomniac Presbyterian fag who likes blasphemy and democrats. There's always a chance.

Israel pictures and write-up are coming, but it is taking forever to sort the 1200 pictures that I took into what's worthwhile, what's only worthwhile to the people on the trip, and what is redundant/blurry/crappy. Expect something substantial Monday.

Posted by Barzelay at 8:17 AM | Comments (0)

April 30, 2005

Ratzinger On Homos, HG2G

This article by some gay Catholic guy, discussing Ratzinger's doctrinal positions on homosexuality. Ratzinger actually seems to be quite reasonable on the subject, though still far from the outright endorsement of buttfucking that I'd prefer.

Saw Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Thursday night at midnight. Went with a bunch of hoopy froods from McGill, and we all went carrying towels. I can easily describe my feelings about the movie in one word, which I will then spell out and repeat. "Meh. M-E-H. Meh." The movie wasn't bad. It was just underwhelming. It wasn't funny.

The best parts, in my opinion, were some of the additions. The bureacracy of the prisoner release worked well. The lemon juicer thing was alright. The point-of-view gun worked. All of the guide stuff was great. The physical comedy all worked very well (for instance, the fly swatters on Vogsphere, as seen in the trailer, the "lend me a hand" bit, the really big woman in the bar). But in regards to the plot, some of the things that were added (by Adams himself, supposedly), ostensibly to better unify the plot, ended up entirely unresolved. Why did Humma Kavula want the gun? What happened to Zaphod's head? Why are towels so useful? And the jokes from the book, with some notable exceptions (especially the whale), just weren't that funny. The books, for me, were never laugh-out-loud funny, they were just appreciate-the-irony-and-the-inherent-humor-quietly funny. In the movie, that irony just doesn't resonate.

Other things were just ridiculous, for instance, the Vogon army consisting of a mere sixty or s