Death to Mickey Mouse!

Wipe that smile off your face.

From the Department of Kooky Islamic Clerics:

Sheikh Muhammad Munajid claimed the mouse is "one of Satan's soldiers" and makes everything it touches impure.

But he warned that depictions of the creature in cartoons such as Tom and Jerry, and Disney's Mickey Mouse, had taught children that it was in fact loveable.

[snip]

"Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases."

Mr. Munajid also proclaimed that "Goofy is a disgrace to mankind" and demanded that the Little Mermaid wear "decent clothing." However, he asserted that High School Musical was "awesome" and that "Allah's blessings fall upon Zac Efron."

Re-Retooling

Okay, what I said the other day? Scratch that. I'm switching to what some like to call a "generalistic" type blog, and what I like to call a "whatever" type blog. I will use it as God intended blogs to be used: open forums for people who don't really know s***, but like to pretend they do know s***.

Yours in generalism,
Patton

Retooling

I have shifted my focus a bit recently from American politics to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the area around them. As such, I will be modifying this blog to suit, and I hope it will continue to be slightly informative, and maybe just a little bit more than slightly informative.

Patton

Palin: Game-Changer or Not?

Since I've been hearing oh so much about McCain's Veep pick, Sarah Palin, and some people I know asked me on my take before I knew much more than her new status. Now that I've gotten a fuller look at Mrs. Palin, I can make a judgment on the wisdom of McCain's choice.

I've heard all of the stuff about how this will appeal to Hillary supporters, and it will solidify the Republican base, which it apparently has (Should I be worried that Huckabee's enthusiastic army of evangelicals absolutely love her?). The "appeal to Hillary supporters" I'm not so sure about. Just consider that most of Hillary's hard-core PUMAs (few though they are), and probably most of her less hard-core supporters will probably take a look at Palin's stances on issues and immediately decide Obama is at least not as bad as the alternative. I discussed this in a previous post (see "Party Unity My Ass, My Ass").

Then there are ever so-soft rumblings of corruption and scandal around Mrs. Palin, despite the widely touted dissimilarities to most of the Alaska GOP. For instance, what did she do to earn indicted Senator Ted Stevens's endorsement? Few people have noted that she originally supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", then dumped it like a dog turd when it became politically unpalatable. Is there any truth to allegations that she fired Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner when he refused to fire her former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper? I'm not saying the evidence is definitive one way or another, but is there smoke without a fire?

Then her positions, which cater well to the GOP base, but do fairly little to broaden his appeal. She is pro-life, a major supporter of gun rights, anti-gay marriage (I don't care much about that, but it had to be said), and either an Evangelical or something close enough. She has little to no foreign policy, although she disagrees with the lack of a long-term strategy in Iraq, a lack Senator McCain appears to be just fine with.

One problem I have is that she is really, really not experienced. Before she was Governor of Alaska (her post for the last 18 months), she was the Mayor of Wasilla, AK, a large metropolis counting between 6,575 and 8,471 souls in its citizenry. Before that, she was on the Town Council. At least Obama has been a Senator for 2/3 of his term. At least Obama was an Illinois State Senator before winning the Senate seat. I will be brutally frank: the only thing that would potentially separate Sarah Palin from the Oval Office is the health and well-being of a 72-year-old (Happy 72nd Birthday, Senator McCain!) who has a history of melanoma. There is a very real possibility that John McCain would die before serving even one term. He needn't even die, just become incapable of functioning, for instance, if he had a severe case of dementia, or have some sort of other serious health event, like a stroke or heart attack.

I just don't buy all of this stuff that Palin is so wunderbar for McCain. Certainly it's an interesting pick. But just because it's interesting doesn't make it the right one.

Party Unity My Ass, My Ass

I will be taking a little break from politicswatching to do my World Civ homework, but before I do, I'd just like to join the chorus of voices commenting on the supposed rift between Hillary supporters and Barack Obama.

The media has this little narrative by the throat: Many Hillary supporters are disappointed, disillusioned, unhappy with Obama, and perhaps unwilling to vote for him. And the McCainiacs are gleefully encouraging this superficial assessment of Democratic disunity (perhaps to draw attention away from their own problems along that line?), hoping it will flare into real disunity, presumably.

Now, if you had looked at the backgrounds of the broadcasting booths for the various 24-hour news channels, you would have seen lots of these self-proclaimed "PUMAs", which stands, as the title of this post indicates, for "Party Unity, My Ass." This unfortunate acronym has led to far, far too many horrible little abbreviations and such based on things that large cats have, like paws and claws and the like.

The thing is, the PUMAs at the convention were rare cats (aagh! I've succumbed to bad-humor-silliness!). The ones around the broadcast booths were practically the only ones, by all accounts. The PUMAs, of course, are no fools, mediawise. They know that if you make a lot of noise in front of a camera, you will look a lot bigger than you actually are. This sort of tactic is something frequently used by pufferfish, politicians, and (you guessed it!) cats. In all cases, it is deceptive, nothing but a load of hot air.

There's a story going around about when the PUMAs tried to organize a little get-together at a five-star hotel in DC. They sent out a cheery-sounding note that basically said "send in the money and we will give you a ticket to this big gathering of like-minded annoyances." They needed 250 PUMAs to be able to hold it at the five-star hotel. It turned out that they were only able to get 60 to fork over the dough, and had to shift it to a Holiday Inn (definitely not five stars) near Dulles.

It should be well known by now that the media, in general, are usually fairly easy to lead by the nose. Show them what appears to be the reality, and they will probably decide that it must be true. Leak rumors of your VP pick, and they will practically vet him/her for you. Loudly shout about sexism, and the good folks at CNN, MSNBC, Fox Noise, etc. will echo it back to you. Unlike some people, I don't fault them (much) for that. They're human, they screw up.

At any rate, here is my final thought, before I read the stuff for World Civ and go to a pool party, and later, a convention watch party. I once read a story told by a man who had gone to Afghanistan. He told about meeting some Afghani adolescents and young men while he was there. He started discussing things with them, and asked how life was. They complained about all of the problems of the Taliban, all of the onerous burdens placed on their lives by the fundamentalists. Then he asked if they would support an American invasion. Instantly the young men were staunch defenders of the Taliban, saying they would fight the Americans to the death, etc. I think most Hillary supporters are a bit like that- I won't say "all bitch, no action," which was my first impulse, but just a little sore over having lost like they did. Understandable, really. But come November, I doubt most Hillary supporters will mark the box for McCain.

For a more succinct expression of what I just took a very long time to say, click here. The top and bottom ones are what I'm talking about.

Oh, S***

Bad, bad news from Pakistan. Only a few days after the resignation of Pervez Musharraf, the anti-Musharraf coalition that controls the Pakistani government is falling apart. Fmr. PM Nawaz Sharif has pulled his PML-N party (that stands for Pakistan Muslim League (N), as in Nawaz Sharif) out of the coalition. Given that the PPP, the late Benazir Bhutto's party is secularist, and PML-N is moderately Islamist, I wonder if anyone who paid attention really didn't see this coming. The only thing that brought the two together was their mutual dislike of Musharraf.

Why is this bad, bad news for us? Well, given that the main supply line for Afghanistan runs from Karachi to Afghanistan via Peshawar, we might want to start worrying about unrest in Pakistan. I don't claim to be an expert here, but I read the experts, and I can put two and two together.

It may be starting already. There's news that a shipment of NATO supplies being readied to head north in Karachi has been attacked by gunmen. God in Heaven, I hope this isn't the start of a trend.

I Am A European-American

DISCLAIMER: This should not, in any way, be considered to be a denigration of African-Americans or any other minorities.

I've got a bit of a problem with our racial atmosphere today, or whatever you want to call it. You see, I am not a minority. I am "white," even though my actual skin tone is closer to a light tan. And I look around and I see celebrations of African-American heritage, Hispanic heritage, Asian-American heritage, Native American heritage. But celebrations of "white" heritage are reserved for the KKK and too-late Confederate sympathizers.

Why can't I be proud of how my ancestors came over on the boat and built up a good life in America? It's obviously because they weren't brought here as slaves.

But if anything, I think that should be a better cause for celebration. My ancestors said, "Okay, let's leave everything we knew, voluntarily, for a place across a big ocean, in which our continued survival may not be certain." What is wrong with being in the majority?

I have to admit, I can't help but feel sometimes as if I'm being discriminated against. In all likelihood, I'm not. In all fairness, "white" people have done some pretty damn bad things in the past. But why should the sons and daughters bear the burdens of the sins that their fathers committed- or didn't commit?

Henceforth, I am no longer white. I am a European-American, and proud of it. Why not?

A Little Bit of Africa in Atlanta, Or, You Brought WHAT Home?

This is a rather weird story that took place in my hometown just this morning. Fulton County Animal Control responded to a call about a wildcat in a neighborhood near Georgia Tech. The cat was hard to catch, but when they caught it, no one knew what the heck it was. Here's the cat in the Fulton County Animal Shelter later in the day:

For those of us who aren't experts on African cats, aside from lions and cheetahs and the like, this is a serval. Servals don't normally roam the streets of Atlanta; most live in Africa, especially in subsaharan Africa, on the savannas. No one knows yet how on earth this cat got to the Peach State, but whoever brought this little kitty here will probably face charges.

Here's the story on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website.

Simply Outrageous

I would like to know when "you are my ally" became "I won't question anything you do" under the Bush administration. In this case, the government at the heart of the "war on terror," in Afghanistan, may not be that much better, in certain areas than the Taliban.

Afghanistan has sentenced to death one Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a journalism student at a university in northern Afghanistan. According to the story, Kambakhsh read an article on an Iranian website taking a differing stance from the wide view on a woman's role in Islamic society, and commented on it, apparently favorably.

By all accounts, you could practically hear the kangaroo inside the court recently as Kambakhsh went in for an appeals hearing. His judge, who had risen to the bench under the Taliban, repeatedly interrupted Mr. Kambakhsh, acting more in the manner of a prosecutor than a judge, and displayed a definite antagonism towards his position. Kambakhsh's defenders had little time to prepare, and the judges throughout the series of trials have all clearly had the same antagonism towards his position.

Then, there's also this, from Registan.net:

Kambakhsh also stands accused of other crimes, such as asking too many questions in class, seeking attention and popularity, being impolite, and swapping dirty jokes over his cellphone.

This is bloody ridiculous. As the defendant's brother put it: “Welcome to the Middle Ages.”

Many clerics have petitioned President Karzai to not not execute Kambakhsh. The issue has also apparently come up in talks between the U.S., the U.K. and Afghanistan.

Why does support for Afghanistan mean "execute all of the 'apostates' or 'heretics' that you like"? Replace them with "regime critics," and it starts seeming a little scary. It seems a bit obvious to me that the "new" Afghan government is just the Taliban in drag (that would be an interesting sight). As the Who put it, "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss."

The Fighter of the Century

I want to take just a moment here to praise what may end up being one of the best fighters currently in development. The Eurofighter Typhoon program began in the 1980s, to counter Soviet jets in a potential shooting war. Even though the threat of Soviet domination is long past, work has continued on the Typhoon, and it now pays off.

According to a BBC article, several Typhoons have just finished testing at Nellis AFB, just outside of Las Vegas, NV.

By all accounts, it is a very, very excellent aircraft, and the descriptions of its awesome capabilities make me wish that some people weren't so against buying major contracts from foreign defense firms. If we truly wanted the best, we would have gotten the Typhoon.

More information on the Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon

Life Kills

I was just looking at the National Safety Council's oddly fascinating (in a rather macabre way) page of "odds of death." One thing I found particularly interesting, in light of some claims by pro-gun activists, was that an average American's lifetime odds of dying by "assault by firearm" are 1 in 324. That doesn't seem too bad until you consider other statistics (all odds are lifetime).

Chances of dying from:

Exposure to forces of nature (heat, cold, lightning, flood, etc.)- 1 in 3,421
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames- 1 in 1,167
Contact with venomous animals and plants- 1 in 46,539
Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature, and pressure- 1 in 9,308
Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces- 1 in 1,366
Exposure to animate mechanical forces (bites from various animals)- 1 in 27,120
Air and space transport accidents- 1 in 5,552
Being a bus occupant- 1 in 94,242

The point of this list is that we have an odd obsession with all sorts of awful ways of dying, such as being struck by lightning, being bitten by poisonous animals, being in a plane crash, etc., but we don't really pay attention to "ordinary" causes of death, such as dying in car crashes (1 in 247), falling (1 in 200), or the aforementioned "assault by firearm."

It really doesn't matter whether you die because your plane crashed or a highly venomous reptile from some faraway land bit you, or you kick the bucket because you hit a lamppost late at night or you slipped on a bunch of marbles and broke your neck. Dead is dead. As a matter of fact, it's a lot safer to fly than it is to drive. You are more likely to die while driving to the airport than while flying on the airplane you board there. Food for thought.

The DC v. Heller Disappointment

The Supreme Court released its ruling in the "guns case," which is to say, DC v. Heller, today. And frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in their decision.

From what I have read so far (not much, as the combined opinions are 157 pages long), the majority's reasoning was, well, interesting. One might even say, creative. In the sense that Enron's fraud was "creative" accounting. Additionally, Scalia's opinion left several questions open. For instance, what standard does one apply to gun laws to judge whether they are in compliance with Heller? Scalia rejected the use of the rational basis test, but he did not say what standard would be proper. Next, does this ruling incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local governments? Again, hard to tell, and this will probably require more court cases, more wasted taxpayer dollars, and an even more clogged court system. Thanks a million, Antonin!

I'm going to read the opinion within the next few days (I can't give you a specific date) and monitor the blogs, and get back on this. For now, check out RCP's posting of the candidates' reactions. I particularly agree with Senator Obama's response.

Why Offshore Drilling is Not the Answer

So, now that gas is $4 a gallon, President Bush is going to Do Something About It. He doesn't have to give a hoot in hell about his approval ratings- after all, he isn't running for reelection. But other Republicans are, and John McCain is aiming to succeed Bush. So Mr. President has to get in on the solution to high fuel prices.

Unfortunately, they have taken the wrong path.

The Republican solution: "Let's drill in ANWR! Let's open up the continental shelf! Say goodbye to those oil shales out west!" In other words, we're going to alleviate the effects of our addiction to oil with…more oil. That's comparable to…say, treating a hangover with more alcohol. In the short term, it might help, but in the end, you still get a massive headache.

Of course, this is supposed to be accompanied by a lot of research into alternative fuels and energies. But seriously, who believes that commitment? Who shot down Jimmy Carter's energy plan? The Republicans. Having said that, they do have some ideas for what alternative energies might be in our future. Their idea of an alternative fuel: uranium.

The Republicans (and especially John McCain) have staked their alternative energy plan on nuclear power plants. McCain himself has called for the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants. Will that do anything to help us within the next few years? Uh…nope. Not only would it take years to construct these reactors, each reactor would cost billions of dollars. The reason that no one has built any civilian nuclear reactors since 1979 isn't so much the bureaucratic red tape, and more so the fact that the things are damn expensive.

As to the title of this post, let me add this. Besides the fact that fueling (no irony intended) an addiction is not a long term answer, offshore drilling would not help us today. If the government lifted the ban on offshore drilling and opened ANWR to oil companies, it would take at least a decade to begin production. For one thing, all of the ships necessary for offshore drilling are booked solid. More are on the way, but they take time to make. And even once the wells began producing, the effect that they would have on oil prices (and thus gas prices) would be negligible. For one thing, all of the oil produced by these wells would go on the open market, subject to market prices. The idea that American-produced oil would cost less for us is rather absurd. Furthermore, there isn't enough oil in ANWR and the continental shelf to significantly decrease the price of oil.

It's a pointless and wasteful boondoggle.

An Appropriate Tribute to Our Great President

I saw this in the New York Times this morning, and I instantly thought, "What's not to love about this?" The city of San Francisco is voting on a proposal to name a sewage plant after our great 43rd President. Interestingly enough, the idea was hatched by some guys in a bar. I just love this idea. It's an entirely appropriate tribute to a president, who, quite frankly, stinks.

Stirring the Pot

Not too long ago, I delivered my opinion on a boneheaded Marine who may have passed out Christian-themed coins in Fallujah. Now I'm going to say some things that might get some of my fellow Christians just a little more pissed.

Let's talk about gay marriage and all that sort of thing.

I personally am not too concerned about this issue, and I don't think it should be a serious issue in the general election.

But I do think that there is no reason that the secular institution of marriage should be available to gays and lesbians. Who issues marriage licenses? Not churches, that's for sure. Legal marriages happen, in fact, when the couple who are marrying sign the government-issued marriage license. The only reason most weddings are in churches is tradition.

There was a story on NPR this morning that brought this to my mind. It was talking about how religious groups across the country have been losing fairly consistently to homosexual couples.

I heard that and I thought, "That's good."

[Apoplexy] That's good? Tell us why, please.

Certainly. The reason that I say that is good is that, my religious convictions aside, I want people to have equal opportunity. I don't particularly like or approve of homosexuality, but that's no reason to force people to follow my beliefs.

But doesn't Leviticus 18:22 say, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."?

Surely. But doesn't Leviticus also lay down the procedures for sacrifices and the basis of the kosher diet? Now, I don't know about you, but I can't think of the last time I saw a sacrifice of that sort in my church. Or been forbidden from eating something because Leviticus said not to. And if we're going to have a Duel of Bible Verses, try these on for size:

Acts 10:14- "'Do not call impure what God has made clean.'"

Matthew 7:1-5- "'Do not judge, or you will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.'"

But it's wrong!

[Snort] Of course you are absolutely perfect in all of your habits.

That's not what I'm saying! Why shouldn't churches be able to follow their beliefs? Why should we override millennia of tradition just to accommodate homosexuals?

Let me give you a different example of tradition. For over three centuries, it was traditional for Southern plantation owners to use African slaves to farm their land. For decades after that, it was traditional for blacks to be systematically marginalized, in the South and around the country. Just because it's traditional doesn't make it right. I'm sure the Canaanites would have said the same thing about their gods before Israel conquered them.

But what about the Free Exercise Clause? I have an unlimited right to practice my religion!

Just because the Free Exercise Clause exists, doesn't mean that you have an unlimited right to practice your religion. If you're saying that the First Amendment confers an unlimited right to practice your religious beliefs, maybe you should talk to the members of the FLDS. In the American legal system, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and acts of Congress take precedence over everything but the Constitution. If your religious beliefs conflict with the secular law, the secular law wins. And that is as it should be. Think about it. Certain extreme sects of Islam tell their followers, "Kill all infidels." If religion had an unlimited license, members of those sects could justify their murders of non-Muslims by citing the Free Exercise Clause. Or the FLDS and other assorted polygamists would be justified in having more than one wife. Just like you can't say anything you want, even though the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. All rights have limits. And that's a good thing.

This is unfair infringement of our rights!

Who ever said life was fair? What verse in the Bible promises you that life will be fair? Is it fair to discriminate against homosexuals by denying them access to some of our most universal institutions, like the army and marriage? And how far is too far in this? Should we follow the letter of the Law and stone homosexuals? Or should we (which is to say, we Christians) embrace our brothers and sisters whether or not they are "normal"? What is "normal"? Check out this Twilight Zone episode, I think it illustrates the question rather well.

I don't find this support for gay marriage incompatible with my belief in Christ. Why do you?

A Season For Every Activity

This is comparatively old news, and the news cycle has already moved on. So what.

According to the BBC, a Marine has been relieved of duty because he may have distributed coins to residents of Fallujah that asked "Where will you spend eternity?" on one side, and carried a Bible verse (John 3:16, in case you wanted to know) on the other side.

I heard this and I thought, "What a f***ing idiot!"

First, let me state that I am a Christian. I go to a Reformed Presbyterian church, and I understand that Jesus charged Christians to go out and tell other people the Good News.

But this overzealous Marine should not have been passing out the coins. Worse, he was apparently doing this on government time (while standing watch at a checkpoint).

If you look at AQ's propaganda (as well as the many other IFGs'- IFG meaning Islamic Fundamentalist Group), it would have you believe that the U.S. is only in Iraq and Afghanistan so that they can convert the good Muslims of those places into Christians. This gives them something actual to point to. "First it's coins- soon you'll be required to go to church, and Korans will be forbidden, and no one will be able to be Muslim." I tell you, AQ's propaganda director must have leapt for joy at something to use against us.

My advice to Christians deploying to the Middle East: Hold the proselytization. Be respectful of the religion of Iraqis and Afghanis. Remember King Solomon's advice in Ecclesiastes 3:1: "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." If you really, really want to spread the word, don't spread it on the taxpayers' quid. If you feel that God is calling you to minister to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, please leave the military before you start working on that job. Again, I understand where you're coming from. But the people of Iraq and Afghanistan might not see it the same way as other Christians do. In short, heed this wise saying: "God gave you brains, now use them," and know when to proselytize and when not to.

Semi-Frequent Absurdity, D-Day Edition, or "And Now For Something Completely Different"

Today is D-Day, therefore I have decided to celebrate this momentous day in history with...something totally unrelated! It's a video with pigeons and a remote-controlled sprinkler. Enjoy!


http://view.break.com/365748 - Watch more free videos

Denouement

The Associated Press has just announced that Senator Barack Obama has enough delegates (2,118) to win the Democratic nomination. The primaries in Montana and South Dakota haven't even taken place, which makes this rather interesting. Obviously a great many supers came in for Barack, and he is now the winner! Now, it's time to get started on healing the divisions caused by this too-long nominating process. Let's focus on the general election. By the by, here's the article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1811465,00.html

This calls for a quote! Appropriately enough, it's from an old African-American spiritual, and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. used it during a very famous speech:

"Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

End Game

It's quite easy to see that within the next week or so, an end will come to the Democratic nominating process. Sen. Obama seems likely to win in both South Dakota and Montana, where he holds double-digit leads over Hillary- and nothing has come up to indicate any sudden reason for that to change. Although those states won't put him over the top by themselves, there is pressure, from what I have seen on the blogosphere, for uncommitted supers to pick one candidate very soon. I expect that enough supers will throw in for Obama by tomorrow night that he can have a victory declaration from beautiful St. Paul, Minnesota.

And please, Hillary, don't be a bitch about the fact that you didn't win. Please. There are things bigger than you at stake here. If you really want the Democrats to win in the fall, be a good loser. Please.

Who Cares About Puerto Rico?

Seriously, does HRC's smashing victory in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico actually mean anything for the general election? According to the Constitution, whether or not she or they like it, only citizens of one of the states can vote in the general election. It's like Democrats Abroad, or Guam, or the Virgin Islands. In the scheme of the nomination, yes, it matters, but how much does this affect her case for the general election? Obama is still only about 4% away from the nod, according to the Times. He'll get at least a few of the delegates from this, so HRC can't claim total victory. I don't mean this to denigrate Puerto Ricans in any way, but insofar as November is concerned, they are useless to HRC's case.

Appeasment, My Rear End

Senator McCain, President Bush, all of you people who are accusing Barack Obama of being an appeaser, in the model of Neville Chamberlain.

I have two words.

Winston Churchill.

Yes, the famous British Prime Minister who led Britain for most of World War II. The man who said "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Certainly he was no "appeaser." And yet these are words that are on record as having left his mouth- at the White House, no less! Could it be that it's not necessary to go to war to deal with a problem?

Moreover, could it possibly be that we might engage Iran and Syria in negotiations that could lead to something? Of course, we won't do unconditional meetings! I don't recall Senator Obama actually saying that he would meet with those countries without conditions.

If you're not convinced, I'll leave you with a final quote, one that maybe Senator McCain will be able understand, since he fought in the Vietnam War. It's from General William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is hell."

Un-Fucking-Believable

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've most likely heard of what's been going on in Myanmar. First, Buddhist monks protesting the military government and getting brutally repressed. Now, Cyclone Nargis has struck this poor, suffering nation, possibly causing more than 32,000 deaths.

And this is the response of the Burmese government:

Even Myanmar citizens who want to donate rice or other items have in several cases been told that all assistance must be channeled through the military. That restriction has angered local government officials like Tin Win who are trying to help rebuild the lives of villagers. He twitched with rage as he described the rice the military gave him.

“They gave us four bags,” he said. “The rice is rotten — even the pigs and dogs wouldn’t eat it.”

He said the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had delivered good rice to the local military leaders last week but they kept it for themselves and distributed the waterlogged, musty rice. “I’m very angry,” he said, adding an expletive to describe the military.

I absolutely cannot believe the chutzpah of these bastards. Hold the Katrina comparisons, at least Bush and FEMA tried to help. In other words, they didn't purposely prevent aid from reaching New Orleans. Not what these military crackheads are doing.

My prediction: Some day, those people are going to get fed up with their government, and there will be some serious trouble. No matter what the culture, people will only put up with so much before they snap. Maybe this is the breaking point for the poor, abused people of Myanmar. This is one place I wouldn't object to a little old-fashioned regime change. The Myanmarese deserve it.

Hey! What's That Over There?

Yes, that is a picture of a Barack Obama pin. I am formally endorsing Senator Obama at this time. I expect my prestigious endorsement will gain him at least one more superdelegate, maybe two or three .

The facts are that I did vote for Sen. Obama in Georgia's primary, and at this point, despite what Hillary says, Sen. Obama has a commanding lead in delegates. Sen. Clinton has much further to go if she wants to beat Barack.

Change we can believe in!

China vs. CNN (and Tibet)

Recently there's been a bit of a to-do between CNN and China over comments that CNN commentator Jack Cafferty made about the Chinese efforts to make the Olympic Torch relay smoother, i.e. without protests. Cafferty said on CNN's "The Situation Room":

"I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years."

China has demanded an apology from CNN and Cafferty, saying that Cafferty was out of line. CNN issued an apology, but Mr. Cafferty has not.

My take: This seems like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction by China. They are thinking not with their intellect, but with their gonads. Someone criticized them, and all they can think of is how someone was mean to them. Hey, Chinese, we have this great thing in the U.S. called "freedom of speech." Also, "freedom of the press." That means that Jack Cafferty can say whatever the heck he wants about you. And you can take that and shove it.

Here's the video:


In other China news:
In the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, China has been trying to suppress signs of unrest in Tibet. To that end, the Chinese have referred to the Dalai Lama as a "wolf in monk's robes" and a "terrorist." For people who don't understand, let me give you an illustration.

How Fares McCain?

Not as poorly as some had hoped or feared, in fact.

According to RealClearPolitics, his "RCP Average" in head-to-head polls against both Clinton and Obama (see here) is above both potential Democratic nominees' averages by 1% and 1.4%, respectively.

But before you McCain supporters start popping the corks on the champagne, consider this. The chart showing the fluctuations of the Averages shows that McCain has come off of a period in which both Hillary and Obama were beating him, and especially Obama. 1% and 1.4% are very slim leads, and the election is by no means decided.

Renovation

As anyone who had seen my blog before (that would be me) would attest, this is a bit of a change. I'm taking Barack to heart, and saying, "It's time for change we can believe in!" Well, you can sure as heck believe in this.

I added "BlogLog" and "NewsClues" to show some of the blogs and news sources that I use (not really MSNBC or Fox- I just thought those might be news sources to include, although some people would dispute my characterization of Fox as a "news source"). I also changed the layout, since the previous layout was cramping the videos that I had embedded. After I post this, I will also put a wee little bit more about my fair self under the "About Me" section.

Hope anyone who stumbles across this by accident enjoys it,
Patton

Does Experience Actually Matter for a President?

All right, everyone knows about the arguments that Hillary has been making since Day One against Barack Obama. I am referring, of course, to the "I have experience" argument (even though HRC's real world experience is debatable). The notion that an experienced President is necessarily a better one, and, conversely, that an inexperienced President is necessarily a worse one, is not borne out by the records of certain past presidents. Woodrow Wilson had never held a national level position. He had been governor of New Jersey for 2-3 years before he ran for Prez. We can see, of course, how his relative inexperience on a national scale hurt him when it came to conducting World War I. There are several other examples of strong Presidents who were relatively inexperienced, and highly credentialed Presidents who apparently did not gain much from their years of experience. The President who guided us through what was probably our greatest domestic crisis ever had served four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives and one term in the U.S. House of Representatives before his election to the presidency on the eve of the Civil War. I refer, of course, to Abraham Lincoln. Oddly enough, both his successor, Andrew Johnson, and his predecessor, James Buchanan, had years and years of experience in government. Buchanan failed to do anything worthwhile to prevent the Civil War, and Johnson messed up Reconstruction and got impeached to boot.

What I would like to see in the race is more focus on the candidates' past judgment, and how they think they would handle an MRC (Major Regional Contingency) or even, potentially, something larger than that. If 9/11 happened again, who would respond the best and fastest? That's what the voters should ask Hillary, Obama, and McCain (and Paul and Gravel, I suppose, if anyone cares about them anymore).

A Very Well Done Video

A video that just came out for Sen. Obama, apparently done totally independently of his campaign. Take a look:

Sifting Through the GOP Debate, Part I

Taking a short break from school to note something interesting from the Republican debate:

Ron Paul made up a word.

Unless, of course, "malinvestment" is in your dictionary. He used it twice, within the space of a few breaths!

DEVELOPING...

CORRECTION: I spoke with my Latin teacher and my Academic Team coach, who is an English teacher. My Latin teacher says it is a word, and my coach concurs, but both agree that it really was a rather inapt word. So, to summarize: Ron Paul said "malinvestment." I laughed at him for making up a word. It turned out that it actually was a word, except that it sucks. I think that's a fair summary.

It's Worked Well for Rudy, Hasn't It?

I had a little run-in with a Paulian on The Caucus (NYTimes Politics blog), who claimed that "Dr." Paul's strategy is to target delegates.  Oh really?

 

/*WARNING! Following content contains slight profanity!  You've been warned!*/

 

He also claimed that Rep. Paul was winning in "states that don't get as much attention," or something like that.  Oh really?  Which states has he won...let me think...?  Iowa?  Nope.  New Hampshire?  Uh-uh.  Michigan?  Negative.  South Carolina?  No.  The best he has done is 2nd place in Nevada.  According to CNN, Rep. Paul has 6 delegates so far.  NYT says that he has none.  (Of course, we all know about how the NYTimes is so liberal.  Courtesy of Rudy.)

 

This does not sound like the strategy of a healthy campaign to me.  This sounds like a campaign that's saying, "We're screwed.  We can't get out because our candidate has made such a commitment to this.  Let's just whitewash the walls to cover up the fact that they're going to come down sooner or later."

 

The commenter is #4 in "Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Answer The Phone" on NYTimes.com, at this address if this link doesn't work: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-answer-the-phone/

Colonel Ron Blimp

I enjoy reading the posts of people courageous enough to actually stand against the fanatical Paulians. That's why I found this very funny. Also, since I am a huge Monty Python fan, I liked this, too.

When Paulians Attack!, Part II

This is just plain ridiculous. Ron Paul needs to rope in his supporters- they are simply out of control. To me, "Dr." Paul is an "NIMC" candidate- "Not In My Country." I would sooner vote for Duncan Hunter than Ron Paul, just because of his supporters. They are incredibly intense, and their intensity is rather freaky. Go ahead and spam me, Paulians! I can take it! You lot are full of so much bull that you cover it up by screaming at people who dare question your Ron Paul gospel. Enough is enough! People make mistakes, and it generally isn't due to grand conspiracies. We are completely over your yelling and screaming and voter intimidation.

A Fair Tax?

I read this column in the New York Times, and I thought a bit. I like Mike Huckabee; he seems like a pretty darn nice guy. But would his tax ideas work? It doesn't seem to make sense, that the FairTax would be taking the tax burden off of those who are able to support it and who don't need to spend such a large percentage of their money to live, and putting it on the people least able to support it. Their math also seems a little weird, too. The article quotes one of the major sponsors of the FairTax saying, "Liberals should love it: it lowers taxes on wages and imposes a tax on wealth." Let me spell out the likely reason why liberals don't seem to be too impressed. The great majority of American people live from paycheck to paycheck, spending most of what they take in each month, whereas people who get more money don't have so much of a problem with that. If they cut back on some luxury expenditures, rich people could get a hell of a lot better off on this. A single man taking in $1,000,000 a year, with no mortgage, 50% investment rate, and good personal habits spend about a percentage point extra, and receive a boost to actual usable income of about 300%. Whereas a 3-person family earning $40,000 per year, with no mortgage, no investment, fairly low charitable-giving and gift-giving rates, public school education for the tyke, and an overall low profile results in an increase in taxes paid, decrease in purchasing power, and a decrease in spendable income. That's very interesting, isn't it. The "progressive" tax would hurt the people who can afford it the least, and help the people who don't need the help.

P.S. This was done practically on a whim, so any FairTax supporters who think I did my research wrong should keep in mind that this was very rushed. I want to do a more detailed look into it, but time has not permitted.