NATO is tired of their soldiers getting killed by allies, or enemies posing as allies. So now, instead of working closer together it's been decided the solution is to limit the interaction between Afghan and NATO forces. BBC has the full story.
I'm not saying commanders are wrong to take this step--you can't allow people to be attacked without reacting to it. But it is troubling after so much progress.
The goal of the Taliban and other separatists is to split the Afghan people from the NATO support. If they can isolate the Afghan people, they can make sure things go back to how they were pre-2001. It doesn't take much violence to terrorize a village into submission, and the Taliban are GOOD at terrorizing the locals.
By either instigating or infiltrating, they have managed to drive a massive wedge between the Afghan forces that will need to stand on their own, and the NATO forces that are supposed to be preparing them to do it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the trajectory at this point, unless both Afghan and NATO officers find a way to continue building the capability of the Afghan security forces despite this new diabolical challenge.
Tuesday
National View: Romney Shown to be Utterly Ignorant
Out of touch doesn't even begin to cover the remarks Romney made at this fundraiser. The best part of these videos is they show Romney spelling out what he's already made perfectly clear in his policy statements and attacks on Obama--he has no friggen clue what goes on in the real world.
And by the "real world," I mean the world where failure isn't "taking a loss," it's having your electric shut off. It's the world where you get up, every day, put 120% into your job, and still get passed over for that promotion and then downsized for arbitrary reasons. Where even if you manage to get that college degree, the odds are the only thing you'll get from it are crippling debts.
It's also the real world where Israel can destroy your home for no reason. Where you can't get enough food for your family because Israel has blockaded your country for a conflict you have nothing to do with. Where a few radicals on both sides keep a devastating conflict going for decades, making the suffering at large continue indefinitely.
Mitt Romney does NOT live in the same world I live in. He doesn't live in the world anyone I know lives in. I've barely heard of anyone who lives in his world. And he says, point blank, he doesn't care about me. Doesn't care about my fiance. Doesn't care about any of the people I care about.
I'd take George W. Bush back before I accepted Romney at the head of my great nation. I can't sling dirtier mud than that.
Videos are at Mother Jones, specifically the 47% and two-state solution.
And by the "real world," I mean the world where failure isn't "taking a loss," it's having your electric shut off. It's the world where you get up, every day, put 120% into your job, and still get passed over for that promotion and then downsized for arbitrary reasons. Where even if you manage to get that college degree, the odds are the only thing you'll get from it are crippling debts.
It's also the real world where Israel can destroy your home for no reason. Where you can't get enough food for your family because Israel has blockaded your country for a conflict you have nothing to do with. Where a few radicals on both sides keep a devastating conflict going for decades, making the suffering at large continue indefinitely.
Mitt Romney does NOT live in the same world I live in. He doesn't live in the world anyone I know lives in. I've barely heard of anyone who lives in his world. And he says, point blank, he doesn't care about me. Doesn't care about my fiance. Doesn't care about any of the people I care about.
I'd take George W. Bush back before I accepted Romney at the head of my great nation. I can't sling dirtier mud than that.
Videos are at Mother Jones, specifically the 47% and two-state solution.
Monday
International Angle: China Trade War?
Earlier today I bashed Romney on his Libya remarks. Now, I'm inclined to do the same thing to Obama over his decision to file a trade complaint against China. Political pandering to people who don't understand the full picture.
I'm not saying that China is on the up-and-up. Not many people who have spent more than 15 minutes reading up on Chinese trade practices will vouch for their ability to play by the rules. But at the same time, if you looked at the United States in a similar point during the transition from an agriculture to an industrial economy you'd see similar practices.
The difference is, we did it first. Before there were established players to be hurt by it.
Obama is smart, smart enough to realize that no matter how many times he tattles on China it will never bring jobs back to America. The economy of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's is gone, and gone forever. The American worker is too expensive, too entitled, and oddly enough too uneducated to do the manufacturing jobs of 2012.
But you can't tell that to someone who doesn't want to flex with the times. Someone who can't. Someone who's just lost their job after 20 years, working in a plant that's now located in China. They barely got their high school diploma, never built another skillset beside operating their assembly line station. They're fucked. The world is leaving them behind, and they're rightly scared about it.
Obama knows he can't help them--probably not, anyway. What I see is Obama trying to help that person's kids. Setting the country up for success down the road, since we've fallen behind on this leg of the race. But that doesn't win elections.
As a nation, we've lost the ability to lay out a plan and work toward a goal. We've been seduced by the instant gratification of drive thru food, iPods, Blackberry syncing. If it's complicated, we want it simplified. If it relies on a human doing their job, we want to automate it to eliminate risk.
That nation needs to be pandered to. We all bitch about politicians, and how they behave. But we created them, folks. Maybe not you, maybe not me--but the Average American needs pandering. They need to be consoled. Whatever politician does this the best will win--even if they actually have nothing of value to offer.
The difference between Obama and Romney for me is pretty simple. They're both politicians; they both pander; they both lie; they both have their flaws and their strengths. But at the end of the day, Romney got rich by destroying healthy companies for short-term gain. Obama got his start helping communities one person at a time. One of these mind sets will set America up for continued greatness, and the other will send us down the path of the British Empire.
I'd really have to tell my child someday, "Kid, you're American. Tone it down a bit."
I'm not saying that China is on the up-and-up. Not many people who have spent more than 15 minutes reading up on Chinese trade practices will vouch for their ability to play by the rules. But at the same time, if you looked at the United States in a similar point during the transition from an agriculture to an industrial economy you'd see similar practices.
The difference is, we did it first. Before there were established players to be hurt by it.
Obama is smart, smart enough to realize that no matter how many times he tattles on China it will never bring jobs back to America. The economy of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's is gone, and gone forever. The American worker is too expensive, too entitled, and oddly enough too uneducated to do the manufacturing jobs of 2012.
But you can't tell that to someone who doesn't want to flex with the times. Someone who can't. Someone who's just lost their job after 20 years, working in a plant that's now located in China. They barely got their high school diploma, never built another skillset beside operating their assembly line station. They're fucked. The world is leaving them behind, and they're rightly scared about it.
Obama knows he can't help them--probably not, anyway. What I see is Obama trying to help that person's kids. Setting the country up for success down the road, since we've fallen behind on this leg of the race. But that doesn't win elections.
As a nation, we've lost the ability to lay out a plan and work toward a goal. We've been seduced by the instant gratification of drive thru food, iPods, Blackberry syncing. If it's complicated, we want it simplified. If it relies on a human doing their job, we want to automate it to eliminate risk.
That nation needs to be pandered to. We all bitch about politicians, and how they behave. But we created them, folks. Maybe not you, maybe not me--but the Average American needs pandering. They need to be consoled. Whatever politician does this the best will win--even if they actually have nothing of value to offer.
The difference between Obama and Romney for me is pretty simple. They're both politicians; they both pander; they both lie; they both have their flaws and their strengths. But at the end of the day, Romney got rich by destroying healthy companies for short-term gain. Obama got his start helping communities one person at a time. One of these mind sets will set America up for continued greatness, and the other will send us down the path of the British Empire.
I'd really have to tell my child someday, "Kid, you're American. Tone it down a bit."
National View: How Do You Know When a Candidate Goes Too Far?
Answer: They change the subject.
Just after the attack on the Libyan consulate, Mitt Romney accused the President of being apologetic in his response. This ignited some pretty heated backlash, including from other Republicans.
It saddens me that someone acknowledging reality, despite party affiliation, is remarkable. But never mind that just now.
Romney knows he went too far in trying to appeal to the militant right wing here in America, and we can tell because he's not talking about the Libya attack or any other Muslim unrest.
This bothers me more than a little. As President, would be able to ignore one of the major foreign policies crises of the last 6 months? "Well, I muffed that--time to focus on education reform for a while." A sitting President doesn't have the luxury of changing their focus.
What I see out of this whole mess is a candidate trying to fire up his base--the people who hate that black bleeding heart in the White House. By accusing Obama of not defending the American way of life, of being ashamed of American values like freedom of speech, Romney's just trying to piss off our own reactionary radicals. The ones who don't necessarily like Romney, but will vote for him if they're sure a vote for Obama is a vote for evil.
Romney doesn't have the first idea how he'd react to such a wide-spread problem. Those who can, do. Those who can't, throw up smoke screens. You can strengthen yourself, or weaken your obstacle--and I think it's pretty clear how Romney approaches his problems.
Just after the attack on the Libyan consulate, Mitt Romney accused the President of being apologetic in his response. This ignited some pretty heated backlash, including from other Republicans.
It saddens me that someone acknowledging reality, despite party affiliation, is remarkable. But never mind that just now.
Romney knows he went too far in trying to appeal to the militant right wing here in America, and we can tell because he's not talking about the Libya attack or any other Muslim unrest.
This bothers me more than a little. As President, would be able to ignore one of the major foreign policies crises of the last 6 months? "Well, I muffed that--time to focus on education reform for a while." A sitting President doesn't have the luxury of changing their focus.
What I see out of this whole mess is a candidate trying to fire up his base--the people who hate that black bleeding heart in the White House. By accusing Obama of not defending the American way of life, of being ashamed of American values like freedom of speech, Romney's just trying to piss off our own reactionary radicals. The ones who don't necessarily like Romney, but will vote for him if they're sure a vote for Obama is a vote for evil.
Romney doesn't have the first idea how he'd react to such a wide-spread problem. Those who can, do. Those who can't, throw up smoke screens. You can strengthen yourself, or weaken your obstacle--and I think it's pretty clear how Romney approaches his problems.
Friday
No Posts Today
Just a heads up there won't be any posting today. Overtime schedule can make things a little too difficult to balance...
I'd rather put things down than break them trying to juggle.
Probably back tomorrow, or Sunday at the latest.
I'd rather put things down than break them trying to juggle.
Probably back tomorrow, or Sunday at the latest.
Thursday
International Angle: Drug Boss Captured
I can't even fathom living in Mexico with the drug violence going on. Mexican authorities captured on of their most wanted drug lords, continuing a string of recent law enforcement successes.
But how well is this going to serve as deterrence? Are they just sweeping away the competition for the next generation? As long as there's so much money to be made in drugs, and there's a reasonable chance of success, there will be someone else ready to pick up where the arrested guy left off.
I'm not sure what the answer is, and making it impossible for the bosses to operate securely is definitely a good step in my eyes. But it still doesn't change the fact Mexico scares the hell out of me.
But how well is this going to serve as deterrence? Are they just sweeping away the competition for the next generation? As long as there's so much money to be made in drugs, and there's a reasonable chance of success, there will be someone else ready to pick up where the arrested guy left off.
I'm not sure what the answer is, and making it impossible for the bosses to operate securely is definitely a good step in my eyes. But it still doesn't change the fact Mexico scares the hell out of me.
National View/Local Corner Hybrid: Ohio Voters
NPR is reporting on Ohio Valley voters...because, well, Ohio is kind of a big deal this election.
The big take away...it's a mess. And that kinda sums up the issue I've seen with Ohio voters.
People you'd expect to vote Democrat (working poor, lower middle class) are stuck on gay marriage. Or abortion. I remember being baffled by this when Bush got reelected--people loudly proclaiming they voted for the man were the ones who hurt the most because of his policies.
But Bush had the same social conservative mindset, and that's all that matter to them. Where it gets interesting is these fundamentalist Christians don't necessarily like Mormons...Romney is no good old boy.
The big take away...it's a mess. And that kinda sums up the issue I've seen with Ohio voters.
People you'd expect to vote Democrat (working poor, lower middle class) are stuck on gay marriage. Or abortion. I remember being baffled by this when Bush got reelected--people loudly proclaiming they voted for the man were the ones who hurt the most because of his policies.
But Bush had the same social conservative mindset, and that's all that matter to them. Where it gets interesting is these fundamentalist Christians don't necessarily like Mormons...Romney is no good old boy.
Wednesday
International Angle: Moronic, Irrational Rage in Egypt and Libya
The attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo, and the deadly one on the Consulate in Benghazi which took 4 lives, can only be described as a clusterfuck. BBC has the details, in politer terms.
I almost have too many words for this situation.
I almost have too many words for this situation.
- This has nothing to do with Islam. No god, no religion, no rational human being views these attacks as anything good or wholesome. I see these actions and I see many things: Ignorance, crime, blind hate, people with no future, people who do not use their brains. They're just Libyan Ku Klux Klan members--useless individuals who are not indicative of their parents societies.
- Why are people making deliberately-offensive films knowing this is a likely outcome? All the subject matter in the world, and you make a movie about a man who's not supposed to be portrayed at all.
- Why on earth is it ok for this to even BE a likely outcome? Rioting and killing people is not an acceptable way to express your feelings.
- Where were the Marines to shoot these rioters? What about local cops? I realize we're talking Libya here, but there has to be some sort of rule of law. If not, right back to the first question--where were the Marines?
- Until every citizen in the world is able to buy into peace and prosperity, they have no reason to protect life or property. Until all children can grow up without knowing hunger, they will learn to steal and kill as a means to survival. They will know only one problem solving method--to kill those between you and resources.
- Senseless, tragic, utterly useless deaths. Keep the victims and their families in your thoughts.
- This is why we don't have warp drive. We're too busy pissing each other off and killing each other to even think about evolving as a race. Until we can genuinely respect each others differences (that's a two way street, everyone), we will be stuck in this never ending cycle of violence.
Sometimes I'm amazed we haven't managed to kill ourselves off completely. Utterly disgusted with humanity right now. We're better than this.
Local Corner: Dispatch Charging for Online Content
You might've seen it already...the Columbus Dispatch is back to charging for online content. I personally ran into this problem the other day, where I started reading up on local news and found I couldn't get much more than headlines.
WOSU did an interview with Phil Pikelny, Vice President of Dispatch Digital on the subject.
For me, it's a very simple decision: Even with this blog, I do not and will not use $239.88 of that website every year. I'll find alternate sources for news, starting with chipping in $10 to WOSU.
WOSU did an interview with Phil Pikelny, Vice President of Dispatch Digital on the subject.
For me, it's a very simple decision: Even with this blog, I do not and will not use $239.88 of that website every year. I'll find alternate sources for news, starting with chipping in $10 to WOSU.
National View: Yelp Reviews as Political Tool?
So I'm browsing through the NPR webpage this morning...and...find this story on Yelp reviewers alternately slamming and praising Scott Van Duzer and his Big Apple Pizza.
Yelp, if you're not familiar, is an online review service. It's used to let consumers rate local businesses--as the website says on the welcome page, "from the city's tastiest burger to the most renowned cardiologist."
I didn't expect this, but I'm not surprised. After all, I'm one of the guys who plans to never step foot in a Chic-Fil-A establishment, and have broadcast that fact on Twitter, Facebook, and this blog. If I used Yelp, I probably would've done it there too.
Or maybe not. I don't use a garden trowel to cut wood, and I don't use a screwdriver as a chisel (not since I was like, 9 anyway). Yelp doesn't strike me as the right venue to voice political opinions.
But hey, whatever. Ultimately, that's a decision each person needs to make on their own--does the way an owner votes matter enough for you to find a different pizza joint?
In the case of myself and Chic-Fil-A, absolutely. And in the case of "Rick B." and Big Apple Pizza it seems the same way.
Just some food for thought...
Yelp, if you're not familiar, is an online review service. It's used to let consumers rate local businesses--as the website says on the welcome page, "from the city's tastiest burger to the most renowned cardiologist."
I didn't expect this, but I'm not surprised. After all, I'm one of the guys who plans to never step foot in a Chic-Fil-A establishment, and have broadcast that fact on Twitter, Facebook, and this blog. If I used Yelp, I probably would've done it there too.
Or maybe not. I don't use a garden trowel to cut wood, and I don't use a screwdriver as a chisel (not since I was like, 9 anyway). Yelp doesn't strike me as the right venue to voice political opinions.
But hey, whatever. Ultimately, that's a decision each person needs to make on their own--does the way an owner votes matter enough for you to find a different pizza joint?
In the case of myself and Chic-Fil-A, absolutely. And in the case of "Rick B." and Big Apple Pizza it seems the same way.
Just some food for thought...
Tuesday
International Angle: East China Sea Heats Up
First Japan buys the disputed islands--then China sends warships to patrol them. BBC has the story. This can't end well.
It's almost unimaginable, to think of two modern powers with more to lose than to gain actually firing shots in anger over some real estate. But since we're stuck in the fossil-fuel era, people don't think rationally about things relating to oil, or natural gas.
I don't actually think this will come down to a three way rumble with China, Taiwan, and Japan duking it out over these tiny islands--but that's what they said about Kuwait, too. Largely, because there's no way the United States will sit back and let China fire on allies over contested territory--and there's no way China wants a couple carrier battle groups with hostile intent in the area.
But these things have been said about other things. "There's no way Germany will reoccupy the Rhineland. There's no way Hussein will invade Kuwait. There's no way the Soviets will invade Afghanistan." Take your pic. History is made out of the unthinkable.
This might look like a small escalation, but it just goes to show China isn't intending to back down just because Japan "bought" their "sovereign territory." That means there's more than a few chapters left to this book.
That's got to be keeping some people in Washington up late.
It's almost unimaginable, to think of two modern powers with more to lose than to gain actually firing shots in anger over some real estate. But since we're stuck in the fossil-fuel era, people don't think rationally about things relating to oil, or natural gas.
I don't actually think this will come down to a three way rumble with China, Taiwan, and Japan duking it out over these tiny islands--but that's what they said about Kuwait, too. Largely, because there's no way the United States will sit back and let China fire on allies over contested territory--and there's no way China wants a couple carrier battle groups with hostile intent in the area.
But these things have been said about other things. "There's no way Germany will reoccupy the Rhineland. There's no way Hussein will invade Kuwait. There's no way the Soviets will invade Afghanistan." Take your pic. History is made out of the unthinkable.
This might look like a small escalation, but it just goes to show China isn't intending to back down just because Japan "bought" their "sovereign territory." That means there's more than a few chapters left to this book.
That's got to be keeping some people in Washington up late.
National View: Chicago Teacher Strike
So the teachers in Chicago have gone on strike after the city and the union failed to reach an agreement on some key issues, among them teacher evaluation and job security assurances. As NPR points out, this particular strike may very well indicate what sort of future unions in general can look forward to.
For me, this highlights just how out of sync teachers unions are with the reality of today, not unlike how out of touch the United Auto Workers were in the early 2000's and up until the Federal gov't had to bail out GM.
Public schools are broken. There aren't many people who have worked with a recent high school graduate, or tried to teach them in a college setting, who will disagree with that statement. American children are still some of the worst-ranked in the world. Our technical and science jobs are being filled by foreigners being flown in from half-way around the world, because our graduates can't cut it.
My problem with the teachers unions is they've dug the battle lines around the teachers, all teachers, even the ones not doing their jobs. Any discussion of change is shot down without discussion. Teachers unions have adopted a very Republican attitude of "NO!" without offering alternatives.
That's not good enough for my tax dollars.
If I don't do my job (which often involves teaching some 18-year-old how to apply basic math or reading comprehension in a real world setting), I will lose my job. If I do my job well, I'll get a 4 percent(ish) raise. I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with the deal Chicago offered.
This is not to say unions should just roll over and accept everything. School districts are notorious for trying to cut costs at teacher and student expense. Higher class sizes, unfair pay, inadequate supplies and facilities have all been seen over and over--they're WHY the unions exist in the first place. I count plenty of teachers among my friends and family, and I'll be the last person to say a poor word against them, or to suggest they should deal with elected officials on a one-on-one basis.
But this combative, uncompromising stance isn't helping anyone. It's why Kasich was able to paint such a compelling nasty picture of teachers in the Senate Bill 5 fight. Like so many other things in our society right now, the old model does not work. We need to find a better way to protect everyone's interest and serve the larger good.
For me, this highlights just how out of sync teachers unions are with the reality of today, not unlike how out of touch the United Auto Workers were in the early 2000's and up until the Federal gov't had to bail out GM.
Public schools are broken. There aren't many people who have worked with a recent high school graduate, or tried to teach them in a college setting, who will disagree with that statement. American children are still some of the worst-ranked in the world. Our technical and science jobs are being filled by foreigners being flown in from half-way around the world, because our graduates can't cut it.
My problem with the teachers unions is they've dug the battle lines around the teachers, all teachers, even the ones not doing their jobs. Any discussion of change is shot down without discussion. Teachers unions have adopted a very Republican attitude of "NO!" without offering alternatives.
That's not good enough for my tax dollars.
If I don't do my job (which often involves teaching some 18-year-old how to apply basic math or reading comprehension in a real world setting), I will lose my job. If I do my job well, I'll get a 4 percent(ish) raise. I'm having a hard time seeing what's wrong with the deal Chicago offered.
This is not to say unions should just roll over and accept everything. School districts are notorious for trying to cut costs at teacher and student expense. Higher class sizes, unfair pay, inadequate supplies and facilities have all been seen over and over--they're WHY the unions exist in the first place. I count plenty of teachers among my friends and family, and I'll be the last person to say a poor word against them, or to suggest they should deal with elected officials on a one-on-one basis.
But this combative, uncompromising stance isn't helping anyone. It's why Kasich was able to paint such a compelling nasty picture of teachers in the Senate Bill 5 fight. Like so many other things in our society right now, the old model does not work. We need to find a better way to protect everyone's interest and serve the larger good.
9/11 Anniversary
It's going to be done-to-death today. Remember the fallen--and remember why they fell.
Not because people hate us, but because we allowed political turf wars and other stupid, inexcusable issues to exist within our police and intelligence communities.
Never forget, and never let the policy makers forget either.
Not because people hate us, but because we allowed political turf wars and other stupid, inexcusable issues to exist within our police and intelligence communities.
Never forget, and never let the policy makers forget either.
Monday
International Angle: Monuments to an Empire Lost
I ran across this pretty cool piece on the BBC New website this morning.
I've heard about the Tegart fortresses in passing before, in Leon Uris's "The Haj," for instance. It was kinda cool to get the behind-the-scenes story--the guy who came up with the idea, and forced it on the Empire.
I like to reflect on the British Empire. There's a lot there.
On the one hand, an incredible resume of achievement and accomplishment. The colonizing, the spreading of a lifestyle, the trade, money, sheer impressiveness of having a quarter of the earth under direct control.
On the other hand, the dark side. The repression of the people who rightly owned the land. The brutal suppression of dissent. Exploiting the land and people, with an unequal investment back in.
It's still relevant, simply for the influence British rule has on former colonies and territories. Most obviously in places like Australia and New Zealand, and the United States.
But also in Hong Kong, a British territory until the late 90's--they've had democratic values so strongly instilled that the Chinese government is having a hard time converting them.
Of course, there's dark sides of the influence too--one doesn't have to look too far in Africa to find the damage colonialism did there.
My point is not to glorify the British Empire, but to recognize the fact it was impressive enough to live on today, influencing the world picture 60 years after it began to break apart.
I've heard about the Tegart fortresses in passing before, in Leon Uris's "The Haj," for instance. It was kinda cool to get the behind-the-scenes story--the guy who came up with the idea, and forced it on the Empire.
I like to reflect on the British Empire. There's a lot there.
On the one hand, an incredible resume of achievement and accomplishment. The colonizing, the spreading of a lifestyle, the trade, money, sheer impressiveness of having a quarter of the earth under direct control.
On the other hand, the dark side. The repression of the people who rightly owned the land. The brutal suppression of dissent. Exploiting the land and people, with an unequal investment back in.
It's still relevant, simply for the influence British rule has on former colonies and territories. Most obviously in places like Australia and New Zealand, and the United States.
But also in Hong Kong, a British territory until the late 90's--they've had democratic values so strongly instilled that the Chinese government is having a hard time converting them.
Of course, there's dark sides of the influence too--one doesn't have to look too far in Africa to find the damage colonialism did there.
My point is not to glorify the British Empire, but to recognize the fact it was impressive enough to live on today, influencing the world picture 60 years after it began to break apart.
Local Corner: Occupy Columbus Told to Remove Tent
According to the Dispatch, the tent hadn't been taken down by 12:20am Monday morning, twenty minutes after the deadline.
I haven't seen the tent personally. What I find most interesting is the comments on the Dispatch's page. A lot of people who work downtown, complaining about a largely-abandoned tent serving as an eyesore.
That's legit, if you ask me. You can't use a tent as a proxy in a protest. That's got to be the weakest, most half-ass attempt at protest I've heard of. "I'm just gonna leave this tent here as a symbol of our solidarity with the guys who are, y'know, battling cops and tear gas. Now I gotta get to work."
Either do it or don't, c'mon.
Now, do I agree with a special law being written specifically to deal with this tent? Not really. The law of unintended consequences is gonna come back to bite the city on the ass for this one. Or maybe not, as it only refers to "non-commercial" structures...I'm sure that provides enough loopholes for things the city does want to have on the sidewalks.
National View: Gov't Sells AIG
So the time has come: AIG raised enough money to buy out the majority stake the Federal government has had for the last 4 years or so. The BBC has the story.
This was all part of the bailout madness--banks, insurers, auto makers all needed insane amounts of cash to stave off certain collapse. Debate STILL rages about whether or not the bailouts were necessary (Josh Mandel, for instance, carefully avoids condemning the auto bailout in his commercials but can't see why we bailed out the banks).
Personally, I'm behind how the situation was handled. I don't think the bailouts solved any problems in our economy. Especially in banking--the same people have the same jobs and are lobbying Congress to let them do the same things that got our economy catywonkus in the first place.
But had we let all those banks and insurers fall flat on their asses? We wouldn't be bitching about a slow recovery--we'd be clamoring for more soup lines. We wouldn't be grumbling about the small profit made on AIG and other stocks the government bought--we'd be moving to Canada, or Iraq, or possibly Mexico looking for work.
Institutions like AIG would most likely have survived bankruptcy. The people responsible would most likely have been fired (or simply downsized). And a culture of fear would have risen. You think banks don't loan enough money now? A bank recently out of bankruptcy protection is not one you'd like to meet. For decades, the horror of what happened "After the Feds turned us away" would cripple the financial sector, making recovery from the housing bubble pop impossible, and compounding every other problem in the economy.
Conjecture, yeah. There's no way of knowing what's down the trail we didn't take. But I'm comfortable with these guesses.
Where I get irritated is the fact we have serious politicians who want to continue deregulating. "These guys had so much rope they did actually hang themselves, and we had to cut it for them to save them from dragging us all down. Why do you want to put shackles on their creativity?"
The bailouts were good; our inability to take steps to prevents another bailing from becoming necessary, inexcusable.
Congress, I'm looking at you. And you.
Amateurs.
This was all part of the bailout madness--banks, insurers, auto makers all needed insane amounts of cash to stave off certain collapse. Debate STILL rages about whether or not the bailouts were necessary (Josh Mandel, for instance, carefully avoids condemning the auto bailout in his commercials but can't see why we bailed out the banks).
Personally, I'm behind how the situation was handled. I don't think the bailouts solved any problems in our economy. Especially in banking--the same people have the same jobs and are lobbying Congress to let them do the same things that got our economy catywonkus in the first place.
But had we let all those banks and insurers fall flat on their asses? We wouldn't be bitching about a slow recovery--we'd be clamoring for more soup lines. We wouldn't be grumbling about the small profit made on AIG and other stocks the government bought--we'd be moving to Canada, or Iraq, or possibly Mexico looking for work.
Institutions like AIG would most likely have survived bankruptcy. The people responsible would most likely have been fired (or simply downsized). And a culture of fear would have risen. You think banks don't loan enough money now? A bank recently out of bankruptcy protection is not one you'd like to meet. For decades, the horror of what happened "After the Feds turned us away" would cripple the financial sector, making recovery from the housing bubble pop impossible, and compounding every other problem in the economy.
Conjecture, yeah. There's no way of knowing what's down the trail we didn't take. But I'm comfortable with these guesses.
Where I get irritated is the fact we have serious politicians who want to continue deregulating. "These guys had so much rope they did actually hang themselves, and we had to cut it for them to save them from dragging us all down. Why do you want to put shackles on their creativity?"
The bailouts were good; our inability to take steps to prevents another bailing from becoming necessary, inexcusable.
Congress, I'm looking at you. And you.
Amateurs.
Saturday
Citizenship: Update Your Ohio Voter Address Online!
If you're anything like me, you've slowly gotten used to the idea that you can do almost anything online. Post office lets you forward or hold your mail online. You can renew your car's registration online. File taxes. Pay bills. Change addresses, update phone numbers, and other contact info for almost everything.
Also, if you're anything like me, you've moved in the last 4 years and realized, "Dammit, I need to go to the library/school/post office/whatever, get a form, and mail in my change of address so I can vote." And you've gotten grumpy, because the Secretary of State office is so far behind the times.
Well be grumpy no more. Now you can update the address on your voting record with a simple online form!
Here's what you do:
Also, if you're anything like me, you've moved in the last 4 years and realized, "Dammit, I need to go to the library/school/post office/whatever, get a form, and mail in my change of address so I can vote." And you've gotten grumpy, because the Secretary of State office is so far behind the times.
Well be grumpy no more. Now you can update the address on your voting record with a simple online form!
Here's what you do:
- Go to the Secretary of State's webpage, and select the "Elections and Voting."
- There's a lot of cool stuff on this page about elections, so I'd bookmark it. For our purposes, find "Voters" in the top left corner of the collage and click it.
- Again, a LOT of good stuff here. You can find the ID requirements, an FAQ, early and absentee voting info...browse it all at your leisure.
- For now, click "Change MY Address Online"
- A new tab/page will open
- You've got 2 options
- Update online (in Green)
- Update manually (in Red)
- Do you see what they did there?
- Once you click "Click Here to Continue" you'll be prompted to enter some information, so they can make an accurate match to your voting record
- Driver's license number
- Your last name, as it appeared when you registered to vote/changed your registration
- Date of birth
- Last 4 of your Social Security number
- From there, you'll see what they have listed as your current address, and the fields to fill in to change it
- Editor's note: Phone number and e-mail address are optional, and I left mine blank. I get enough harassment from candidates and activists as it is.
- The next page will show you the finished product
- make sure it looks right and either
- go back and fix it or
- confirm it
- Once you submit the change, you'll have the usual page dedicated to you affirming your eligibility to vote
- You'll see a message at the end telling you the change has been forwarded to the proper authorities for processing. My guess is once it's official, you'll receive one of those little post cards
- When/if I get mine I'll update this portion ;-)
This is just for Ohio, mind you. I know there are states out there without any online system in place, so make absolutely sure it's a real application you're using before punching in a bunch of personal info--scammers love to cash in on our need for convenience.
*** UPDATE 9/17/12 ***
Yes, the Board of Election sent in a confirmation card like usual. Tho ironically, this doesn't qualify as proof you live at that address...
Friday
International Angle: Another Black Mark on Religious Rule
This story just baffles me.
I wasn't raised to believe there's one right way to think--about anything. I also wasn't raised to believe it's my job to punish people on any god's behalf. I also wasn't raised to believe that someone from another faith has to play by my rules.
This whole thing just feels...wrong.
It also highlights my whole problem with basing a legal code on religious teachings. Any religious teachings. I don't care if you're Baptist, Buddhist, Mormon, or Muslim--you keep your faith in your temples and out of my courts.
I don't care about your religion, in the most positive way possible. You do what feeds your spirit, and I won't get in your way. All I want is the same courtesy--which means I draw the line at legislating faith into my secular code of laws.
It's 2012, ladies and gentlemen. It's time we got over the idea of a scary creature in the sky ready to punish us for misbehaving.
I wasn't raised to believe there's one right way to think--about anything. I also wasn't raised to believe it's my job to punish people on any god's behalf. I also wasn't raised to believe that someone from another faith has to play by my rules.
This whole thing just feels...wrong.
It also highlights my whole problem with basing a legal code on religious teachings. Any religious teachings. I don't care if you're Baptist, Buddhist, Mormon, or Muslim--you keep your faith in your temples and out of my courts.
I don't care about your religion, in the most positive way possible. You do what feeds your spirit, and I won't get in your way. All I want is the same courtesy--which means I draw the line at legislating faith into my secular code of laws.
It's 2012, ladies and gentlemen. It's time we got over the idea of a scary creature in the sky ready to punish us for misbehaving.
Local Corner: State Plane Usage
As much as I'd love to rag on GOP officials abusing privileges of office...these two cases highlighted here don't strike me as abuse.
Especially in the case of House Speaker Batchelder--dude used state resources to get back to his state job, and paid for it to boot. I really don't see an issue with that.
That being said, I'm not exactly impressed by the Lieutenant Governor using state resources to save herself an hour and a half car ride to Sidney, presumably to enable her to take advantage of cheaper airfare/better flight time into Canton/Akron. So she could take personal time. And only pay a fraction of the total cost to fly her around to this and other trips.
I would definitely say some guidelines need to be laid down on what constitutes "appropriate" use of state resources--if it's genuinely the best way to get state officials around, great. But if we're strictly enabling lazy habits or personal convenience, you can take that tax money and pay my tuition this semester instead, ok?
The party of small government--except when a bigger government can pay for easy air travel.
Especially in the case of House Speaker Batchelder--dude used state resources to get back to his state job, and paid for it to boot. I really don't see an issue with that.
That being said, I'm not exactly impressed by the Lieutenant Governor using state resources to save herself an hour and a half car ride to Sidney, presumably to enable her to take advantage of cheaper airfare/better flight time into Canton/Akron. So she could take personal time. And only pay a fraction of the total cost to fly her around to this and other trips.
I would definitely say some guidelines need to be laid down on what constitutes "appropriate" use of state resources--if it's genuinely the best way to get state officials around, great. But if we're strictly enabling lazy habits or personal convenience, you can take that tax money and pay my tuition this semester instead, ok?
The party of small government--except when a bigger government can pay for easy air travel.
National View: Arizona "Papers" Clause Upheld
The Supreme Court had already ruled this into effect, and directed that the "Show me your papers" provision cannot be challenged again until it goes into effect. But Federal judge Susan Bolton reiterated this fact, while providing a preliminary injunction against <>(BBC, 9/6/12 1245PM).
This one's been done to death. I still want to know what constitutes "reasonable cause" to check immigration status--speaking Spanish, brown skin, working 3rd shift? Mostly I feel for the cops who are supposed to double as immigration authorities.
All I know is the Arizona law is proof that nature abhors a vacuum--Federal authorities have been silent on the immigration problem for too long. I also know this law won't solve a damn thing; the problem is bigger than any single piece of legislation (no matter how many states adopt it) can resolve.
But we're Americans. It's become very hard for us to look at large problems, view them objectively, and break them into smaller pieces. Instant gratification has destroyed our abilities to problem solve, and until we re-learn that skill we'll continue to be plagued by massive problems--and worse, the slap-dash bandaid-style fixes for them.
This one's been done to death. I still want to know what constitutes "reasonable cause" to check immigration status--speaking Spanish, brown skin, working 3rd shift? Mostly I feel for the cops who are supposed to double as immigration authorities.
All I know is the Arizona law is proof that nature abhors a vacuum--Federal authorities have been silent on the immigration problem for too long. I also know this law won't solve a damn thing; the problem is bigger than any single piece of legislation (no matter how many states adopt it) can resolve.
But we're Americans. It's become very hard for us to look at large problems, view them objectively, and break them into smaller pieces. Instant gratification has destroyed our abilities to problem solve, and until we re-learn that skill we'll continue to be plagued by massive problems--and worse, the slap-dash bandaid-style fixes for them.
Thursday
International Angle: Save the Children Staff Kicked Out of Pakistan
Pakistan has ordered foreign staff for the charity group Save the Children out within two weeks. According to the BBC (which has the story) the Pakistani government hasn't given a reason, but there's plenty of reason to believe they think there's CIA links with the organization.
This story caught my eye because it's an exercise in perspective. While most of us in the West read this and go, "That's insane! It's a charity!" that would logically be a perfect place for a CIA informant to be recruited. Think of all those Islamic charities we shut down in the wake of 9/11. I'm willing to be a large percentage of the Muslim world was going, "That's insane! They're charities!"
What I also find interesting is this order effects only 6 people out of 2000. Either they have some very good, targeted information or it's an irrational, reactionary move. Either way, it shouldn't bother operations very much for the group.
This story caught my eye because it's an exercise in perspective. While most of us in the West read this and go, "That's insane! It's a charity!" that would logically be a perfect place for a CIA informant to be recruited. Think of all those Islamic charities we shut down in the wake of 9/11. I'm willing to be a large percentage of the Muslim world was going, "That's insane! They're charities!"
What I also find interesting is this order effects only 6 people out of 2000. Either they have some very good, targeted information or it's an irrational, reactionary move. Either way, it shouldn't bother operations very much for the group.
Local Corner: Husted Called to Account
Jon Husted, the Ohio Secretary of State, has been called to appear in Federal court about his decision to restrict voting access, despite the preliminary injunction by Judge Economus. Essentially, the Judge thinks Husted's decision to forbid voting hours on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday before the November election is contrary to Economus's ruling that voting be allowed those days. Dispatch has the story.
I'd be baffled about this crusade against extended voting hours if I were less cynical. Who benefits from extended voting? Anyone who can't get time off work at some point Tuesday to vote (generally not Republicans). Anyone relying on volunteer transportation more readily available on the weekend (again, generally not Republicans).
Limiting voting hours is the same as bizarre ID requirements is the same as a poll tax is the same as a literacy test: a gimmick employed by those who want to control who is allowed to vote.
This is one of those situations where I feel the need to loudly express, "That guy was hired over my strenuous objections."
I'd be baffled about this crusade against extended voting hours if I were less cynical. Who benefits from extended voting? Anyone who can't get time off work at some point Tuesday to vote (generally not Republicans). Anyone relying on volunteer transportation more readily available on the weekend (again, generally not Republicans).
Limiting voting hours is the same as bizarre ID requirements is the same as a poll tax is the same as a literacy test: a gimmick employed by those who want to control who is allowed to vote.
This is one of those situations where I feel the need to loudly express, "That guy was hired over my strenuous objections."
National View: Turn-about is Fair Play
NPR pointed out the faulty-facts at the RNC, and has done the same for the DNC. Just in case anyone needed a reminder that all politicians lie and cherry pick their truths.
Also, I think this is a good illustration of just how biased towards the left NPR is (not as much as the GOP wants us to think)--I was astounded when a FOX commentator points out Paul Ryan lies, but I'm hardly surprised this story was on the front page of the NPR website.
I also really liked these 5 Takeaways. I didn't watch any of the convention, just like I didn't watch any of the Republican convention, but what's trickling in through the media and social outlets just FEELS better to me. Less angry. Less threatening. Less smug.
Whatever. It's not secre I identify with the Democrats far more than the Republicans ;-)
Also, I think this is a good illustration of just how biased towards the left NPR is (not as much as the GOP wants us to think)--I was astounded when a FOX commentator points out Paul Ryan lies, but I'm hardly surprised this story was on the front page of the NPR website.
I also really liked these 5 Takeaways. I didn't watch any of the convention, just like I didn't watch any of the Republican convention, but what's trickling in through the media and social outlets just FEELS better to me. Less angry. Less threatening. Less smug.
Whatever. It's not secre I identify with the Democrats far more than the Republicans ;-)
Wednesday
International Angle: South China Sea
So as happens from time to time, China decides they own parts of the world other countries also claim to own. If ever there's going to be a major conflict between sovereign nations in the near future, this is what it'll be over--islands, fisheries, and mineral resources in the South China Sea.
Currently, the Chinese government is a little pissed off that the US has been advocating a local, multi-lateral solution to the disputes through Asean, the Association of South East Asian Nations. According to the BBC, state-run media in China is accusing the US of "attempting to sow discord in order to fish for advantage."
Mrs. Clinton's actual statement? <>(BBC, 1101 9/5/12)
Yep, them's fighting words alright. Our apologies for not urging everyone to surrender their sovereign rights to the desires of the Chinese government, of course. Perhaps America is historically qualified to judge thinly-veiled imperialistic endeavors, just maybe?
Currently, the Chinese government is a little pissed off that the US has been advocating a local, multi-lateral solution to the disputes through Asean, the Association of South East Asian Nations. According to the BBC, state-run media in China is accusing the US of "attempting to sow discord in order to fish for advantage."
Mrs. Clinton's actual statement? <
Yep, them's fighting words alright. Our apologies for not urging everyone to surrender their sovereign rights to the desires of the Chinese government, of course. Perhaps America is historically qualified to judge thinly-veiled imperialistic endeavors, just maybe?
Local Corner: Flat Rate Library Fines?
Evidently, the board of the Columbus Metropolitan Library is considering a flat-rate fine for overdue items, instead of the current system of daily fines. Story from the Dispatch.
Highlights of the proposed changes:
The goal of the change would be to reduce the number of people who hit the $10 in fines currently necessary to block card use. Between the grace period, the threat of heavier fines, and the increase in renewal opportunities the plan is to make it so fewer users have late items. Objections seem to be based on the fact that $5 for a 1-day-late item would be excessively punitive.
To that I say it's NOT 1 day late--it's 15 days late by the time they issue a fine. Your due date, plus 14 days of grace. That's TWO EXTRA WEEKS for you to remember to put the video, or book, or CD in your car and drop it on the way to work.
This is the problem with grace periods in this society--we take them for granted. We assume it's just extra time we can take, making a mockery of the original due date (which is, by the way, is the date the library does business based on).
And I know you kids have been waiting on a reserved item, going, "Why the hell isn't this in yet??"
It's because someone's going, "Eh, I'll just pay the fine and return this whenever."
Something I failed to point out from the Dispatch's article: These are proposals the board hasn't yet voted on as of now. The changes already voted on and approved simply lowered the daily fines and increased the number of times one can renew an item, with NO flat rate.
Last week, the library board voted on so-called "Phase One" of the plan, which lowers fines on adult accounts to 20 cents a day, and juvenile accounts to 10 cents a day. Phase one also includes the total fine per item reduction (from $15 to $5 for adults or $1 for kids), and the increase in renewal instances (from 5 to 10). According to the Dispatch, these changes roll out October 1st.
*Initially, I listed this as one of the proposed changes--this is actually a change voted on in "Phase One" set to roll out at the beginning of next month.
Highlights of the proposed changes:
- Fine levied only after a 14 day grace period
Renewals doubled--10 renewals instead of 5 (if no one has the item reserved)*- New system being considered to automatically renew items
- Card access blocked after an item is 2 weeks late, instead of $10 in fines
The goal of the change would be to reduce the number of people who hit the $10 in fines currently necessary to block card use. Between the grace period, the threat of heavier fines, and the increase in renewal opportunities the plan is to make it so fewer users have late items. Objections seem to be based on the fact that $5 for a 1-day-late item would be excessively punitive.
To that I say it's NOT 1 day late--it's 15 days late by the time they issue a fine. Your due date, plus 14 days of grace. That's TWO EXTRA WEEKS for you to remember to put the video, or book, or CD in your car and drop it on the way to work.
This is the problem with grace periods in this society--we take them for granted. We assume it's just extra time we can take, making a mockery of the original due date (which is, by the way, is the date the library does business based on).
And I know you kids have been waiting on a reserved item, going, "Why the hell isn't this in yet??"
It's because someone's going, "Eh, I'll just pay the fine and return this whenever."
*** Update 12:34 AM 9/6/12 ***
Something I failed to point out from the Dispatch's article: These are proposals the board hasn't yet voted on as of now. The changes already voted on and approved simply lowered the daily fines and increased the number of times one can renew an item, with NO flat rate.
Last week, the library board voted on so-called "Phase One" of the plan, which lowers fines on adult accounts to 20 cents a day, and juvenile accounts to 10 cents a day. Phase one also includes the total fine per item reduction (from $15 to $5 for adults or $1 for kids), and the increase in renewal instances (from 5 to 10). According to the Dispatch, these changes roll out October 1st.
*Initially, I listed this as one of the proposed changes--this is actually a change voted on in "Phase One" set to roll out at the beginning of next month.
National View: Better Off than 4 Years Ago?
Flipping through NPR's homepage, I saw an interesting little link: Are You Better Off Than Four Years Ago?
My answer to that is fortunately a resounding "Yes." That has precious little to do with Obama, however--I've taken plenty of steps in my own life to better my position.
I've changed jobs, changed industries, mated my work ethic to fortunate circumstances, gotten back to school.
One can make a healthy argument in either direction whether or not Obama has any direct effect on my improved fortune. Personally, I don't think it's as cut and dried as that--it's shades of gray, partial truths, incomplete data.
I tend to think anyone would have bailed out the insurance, auto, and banking industries had they been in the hot seat (Looking at you here, Ryan). I don't care about your stance on public debt; if you're faced with the certain downsizing of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of jobs, you're sending the cash. No President will knowingly hurt the economy, period. No President will go out on a limb if there's a chance the next Depression can be blamed on him.
What's that got to do with me? The overall health of the economy is crucial to the well-being of my industry, my company, my job. If the consumer isn't spending on luxuries, I don't have a job. If staving off total disaster was the only thing Obama accomplished this term, I'm grateful for that.
Fun Fact: when I answered the question (morning of 9/4/12) there had been 649 clicks--390 saying "Yes," 165 "No," and 94 "The same." Totally not scientific, and I wonder what effect the target audience (NPR listeners with internet access and free time) has on the results...
My answer to that is fortunately a resounding "Yes." That has precious little to do with Obama, however--I've taken plenty of steps in my own life to better my position.
I've changed jobs, changed industries, mated my work ethic to fortunate circumstances, gotten back to school.
One can make a healthy argument in either direction whether or not Obama has any direct effect on my improved fortune. Personally, I don't think it's as cut and dried as that--it's shades of gray, partial truths, incomplete data.
I tend to think anyone would have bailed out the insurance, auto, and banking industries had they been in the hot seat (Looking at you here, Ryan). I don't care about your stance on public debt; if you're faced with the certain downsizing of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of jobs, you're sending the cash. No President will knowingly hurt the economy, period. No President will go out on a limb if there's a chance the next Depression can be blamed on him.
What's that got to do with me? The overall health of the economy is crucial to the well-being of my industry, my company, my job. If the consumer isn't spending on luxuries, I don't have a job. If staving off total disaster was the only thing Obama accomplished this term, I'm grateful for that.
Fun Fact: when I answered the question (morning of 9/4/12) there had been 649 clicks--390 saying "Yes," 165 "No," and 94 "The same." Totally not scientific, and I wonder what effect the target audience (NPR listeners with internet access and free time) has on the results...
Tuesday
International Angle: South Africans Decide NOT to Use Apartheid-era Law Afterall
So let's say you're out on strike. While you're out on the picket line, a group of your union brothers and sisters gets a lil rowdy, and starts throwing rocks at the cops. The cops open fire with lethal force (as they do) and kill a bunch of the picket line. Turn the page.
You're charged with the murder of those other picketers. The ones the cops shot. Because the picketers were throwing rocks. While you were chanting slogans.
No folks, that's not a plot hole. That's just the gut reaction of the South African government when police opened fire on a group of miners refusing to go back to work. Interestingly enough, the law forming the basis for this decision was designed by the apartheid-era government in order to keep the black population down.
Consistency. It's a myth.
But apparently prosecutors figured out this isn't the wisest move, and "provisionally dropped charges."
You're charged with the murder of those other picketers. The ones the cops shot. Because the picketers were throwing rocks. While you were chanting slogans.
No folks, that's not a plot hole. That's just the gut reaction of the South African government when police opened fire on a group of miners refusing to go back to work. Interestingly enough, the law forming the basis for this decision was designed by the apartheid-era government in order to keep the black population down.
Consistency. It's a myth.
But apparently prosecutors figured out this isn't the wisest move, and "provisionally dropped charges."
Local Corner: High School Student Incites Panic?
This is a cute one, and speaks directly to the balance between prevention and paranoia.
In a nutshell, a Gahanna high school student is arrested because he made a few tweets and posted two videos. I watched the video--it's still up, as there's no particular reason for it not to be--and I can definitely see how it might concern people.
Especially suburban parents. Especially in an era where we're no longer shocked when someone DOES decide to commit an act of violence at a school. So I do not blame parents or students from getting creeped out, and contacting the cops.
What does trouble me is the fact that the sum of all these parts is supposed to make a felony. This troubles me on several levels:
Like I said, I get why the cops were called. Especially because of tweets that were sent to specific people. It's unnerving, and it was quite correctly checked out by authorities.
My problem is with authorities finding nothing more serious than some self-righteous kid with a Youtube account trying to play at being a big bad political activist, and charging him with a felony. Just what we need, more suburban kids who will never find meaningful employment.
But maybe there's more to this. No word on what was found when the home was searched, and the school isn't talking about the kid himself. But from what I'm seeing, this is just a poorly thought out statement by a kid who simply didn't think out the possible repercussions.
In a nutshell, a Gahanna high school student is arrested because he made a few tweets and posted two videos. I watched the video--it's still up, as there's no particular reason for it not to be--and I can definitely see how it might concern people.
Especially suburban parents. Especially in an era where we're no longer shocked when someone DOES decide to commit an act of violence at a school. So I do not blame parents or students from getting creeped out, and contacting the cops.
What does trouble me is the fact that the sum of all these parts is supposed to make a felony. This troubles me on several levels:
- This video is more mild than the average Baptist sermon. "I just wanted to let you all know how you live your lives is dangerous and wrong and you have grown weak-minded and pathetic." Really? This is inciting panic?
- I've said the same thing to employees, though in less-blunt terms.
- There are entire think-tanks full of people paid comfortable salaries to publish papers to this same effect.
- Is it a threat because the production value is low? If it was polished it'd be edgy?
- "Next time we meet I will have something more interesting to show you all." I don't read this as dramatic foreshadowing--as in, "next time I'll have pictures of a blown-up school." I read this as, "Hey keep watching for my next video cuz I know this one kinda sucks but I'll get better!"
- Do you remember being 16? Do you remember having it all figured out, knowing it all, and helplessly watching people fuck up their lives every day? It was frustrating, wasn't it? You just wanted to scream from the rooftops how stupid they all were, didn't you? Well, at least I did.
- Since when is "I'm not going to hurt anyone" taken as a threat? Have we completely lost the ability as a society to even consider something at face value?
Like I said, I get why the cops were called. Especially because of tweets that were sent to specific people. It's unnerving, and it was quite correctly checked out by authorities.
My problem is with authorities finding nothing more serious than some self-righteous kid with a Youtube account trying to play at being a big bad political activist, and charging him with a felony. Just what we need, more suburban kids who will never find meaningful employment.
But maybe there's more to this. No word on what was found when the home was searched, and the school isn't talking about the kid himself. But from what I'm seeing, this is just a poorly thought out statement by a kid who simply didn't think out the possible repercussions.
Clint Eastwood
So if you haven't seen it yet, ABC News has the full 11-odd minutes of Clint Eastwood rambling here.
What do I think about this? I can sum it up in a few short bullet points.
What do I think about this? I can sum it up in a few short bullet points.
- This is funny
- Clint is an old man
- He's saying a lot of things that neither Mitt nor Ryan can say
- It's supposedly unscripted (I'll buy that) so we can't blame the RNC for it
- Clint is 82 damn years old
- How many 82 year old men do you know don't ramble?
- It has nothing to do with anything
- Except maybe pulling attention away from the issues at hand.
While we're all pointing and laughing at a batty old man being obscene and hawking old catch phrases, Mitt isn't answering any questions. Ryan is also not having to account for the gross inaccuracies in HIS speech. We're all too busy talking about Clint Eastwood, who means exactly "fuck-all" to the future of this country's government.
I'm getting just cynical enough to believe this WAS some stunt Clint was put up to (or came up with himself, the man IS a smart dude) to muddy the waters. Not that the average American voter tries too hard to see through the murk--that's not the point.
The point is, if someone IS to say, "Wait a minute, why exactly did Ryan make all that crap up?" and start looking into the facts there had better be plenty of distractions and obstacles in the way. And Clint Eastwood being loony-tunes is a WONDERFUL distraction.
That's really all I have to say about Clint and his chair.
Monday
I'm Baaaaaaaaaaaack
So. It's been...quite some time now. I've quite honestly not had a lot to say, and not a lot of time to say it in.
But maybe, just maybe, it's time to try again. Because things are...troubling. Too many people screaming, not enough people thinking. Thinking's my strong suit--I probably do too much of that.
So I should share some of these thoughts, release-valve style. Because when one keeps thoughts bottled up too long, they tend to take on a life of their own.
And that's how we end up with random acts of violence.
So sit back, and join the non-existent crowds already enjoying these random acts of ranting (which, I think we can all agree, are far better than violence).
But maybe, just maybe, it's time to try again. Because things are...troubling. Too many people screaming, not enough people thinking. Thinking's my strong suit--I probably do too much of that.
So I should share some of these thoughts, release-valve style. Because when one keeps thoughts bottled up too long, they tend to take on a life of their own.
And that's how we end up with random acts of violence.
So sit back, and join the non-existent crowds already enjoying these random acts of ranting (which, I think we can all agree, are far better than violence).
Wednesday
Santorum Leading in Ohio?
Delegate Count!
Mitt: 105/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 18/1144
Ricky: 71/1144
Source: NY Times
***
So in an unrelated search, I came across this article about a recent poll of Ohio Republicans. The upshot is that among the 4 candidates, Ricky is at the front of the pack by 7% points in the new Quinnipiac poll. This isn't a huge shock to me.
Ohio is a rather conservative state, outside the city. In Columbus, we celebrate gay culture (if that's even a valid term), but in the state at large we write second-class status for homosexuals into the state Constitution. We vote people into office who think a valid use of government time is to make laws closing down porn shops and strip clubs. You can't travel between two major cities without seeing billboards about hell and damnation, or the ten commandments (link is to a story about an identical billboard in Kentucky tho). Suffice to say, there's a significant number of people in this state who love Jesus in many of his intolerant forms.
So does it surprise me that Santorum is striking a nerve with the devout in Ohio? Nope. Not one tiny bit. Is it upsetting? Only a little. We are talking about a tiny percentage of the state, the ones likely to vote in the March 6th primary. And we all know primaries do little besides bring the wingnuts out of the woodwork, so I gotta take this with a grain of salt.
Mitt: 105/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 18/1144
Ricky: 71/1144
Source: NY Times
***
So in an unrelated search, I came across this article about a recent poll of Ohio Republicans. The upshot is that among the 4 candidates, Ricky is at the front of the pack by 7% points in the new Quinnipiac poll. This isn't a huge shock to me.
Ohio is a rather conservative state, outside the city. In Columbus, we celebrate gay culture (if that's even a valid term), but in the state at large we write second-class status for homosexuals into the state Constitution. We vote people into office who think a valid use of government time is to make laws closing down porn shops and strip clubs. You can't travel between two major cities without seeing billboards about hell and damnation, or the ten commandments (link is to a story about an identical billboard in Kentucky tho). Suffice to say, there's a significant number of people in this state who love Jesus in many of his intolerant forms.
So does it surprise me that Santorum is striking a nerve with the devout in Ohio? Nope. Not one tiny bit. Is it upsetting? Only a little. We are talking about a tiny percentage of the state, the ones likely to vote in the March 6th primary. And we all know primaries do little besides bring the wingnuts out of the woodwork, so I gotta take this with a grain of salt.
Thursday
Why Santorum Has No Business In Government
Delegate Count!
Mitt: 94/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 8/1144
Ricky: 71/1144
Source: NY Times
***
It should be no surprise, nor secret, that I lean left. I vote nearly exclusively democrat, for a variety of reasons. But that hasn't stopped me from saying things like, "Romney's not all bad, I don't think he'd be a bad President" or "Newt does have a point." I wouldn't vote for either one of them, but I can respect their views.
Even Ron has some interesting, if impractical ideas, and you can tell he's given these subjects plenty of thought. I can respect a man who must know he sounds totally whacko, but keeps making his point anyway.
Santorum, and his whole "I'm the real conservative" argument? I have some serious problems with. For one thing, his definition of "conservative" seems to equate to "Intolerant, blindly-religious, hate-monger." This most recent outburst about Obama setting us up to decapitate Christians? How on earth can this be coming out of an intelligent man's mouth?
I spend a lot of time reading, watching, and casually studying history. One of things that blows my mind is how important the Catholic church used to be. The fact the Pope had to give his blessing to the succession of any royal family, because rulers received their right to rule from God (and only the Vicar of Christ could convey that right).
It also makes me think about other minor things, like scientists being burned alive because their discoveries conflicted with church teachings. Jews being tortured and killed for refusing to renounce their faith, in the name of someone else's faith.
When Santorum says things like he "could not and would not leave my faith at the door" this is what comes to my mind. A dark time in human history. A time where young girls were persecuted and killed because some preacher said "Witchcraft."
I believe in the very firm, very non-negotiable separation of church and state. Santorum would like to impose his faith on us. Simply unacceptable, and I find it alarming so many Americans don't share this view.
Mitt: 94/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 8/1144
Ricky: 71/1144
Source: NY Times
***
It should be no surprise, nor secret, that I lean left. I vote nearly exclusively democrat, for a variety of reasons. But that hasn't stopped me from saying things like, "Romney's not all bad, I don't think he'd be a bad President" or "Newt does have a point." I wouldn't vote for either one of them, but I can respect their views.
Even Ron has some interesting, if impractical ideas, and you can tell he's given these subjects plenty of thought. I can respect a man who must know he sounds totally whacko, but keeps making his point anyway.
Santorum, and his whole "I'm the real conservative" argument? I have some serious problems with. For one thing, his definition of "conservative" seems to equate to "Intolerant, blindly-religious, hate-monger." This most recent outburst about Obama setting us up to decapitate Christians? How on earth can this be coming out of an intelligent man's mouth?
I spend a lot of time reading, watching, and casually studying history. One of things that blows my mind is how important the Catholic church used to be. The fact the Pope had to give his blessing to the succession of any royal family, because rulers received their right to rule from God (and only the Vicar of Christ could convey that right).
It also makes me think about other minor things, like scientists being burned alive because their discoveries conflicted with church teachings. Jews being tortured and killed for refusing to renounce their faith, in the name of someone else's faith.
When Santorum says things like he "could not and would not leave my faith at the door" this is what comes to my mind. A dark time in human history. A time where young girls were persecuted and killed because some preacher said "Witchcraft."
I believe in the very firm, very non-negotiable separation of church and state. Santorum would like to impose his faith on us. Simply unacceptable, and I find it alarming so many Americans don't share this view.
Wednesday
Well and the Holy Crap Santorum Does WELL
Delegate Count!
Mitt: 91/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 8/1144
Ricky: 44/1144
Source: NY Times
***
To say I'm a little surprised to hear about Ricky pulling off wins in ALL THREE CONTESTS is an understatement. As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject, I expected a very strong showing or even win for Ricky in Colorado. I mean, c'mon, Colorado Springs is home to Focus on the Family.
But as the BBC pointed out, Minnesota must have had some serious Tea Party elements who viewed Romney as too moderate. As for Missouri, no one except Santorum was there, because the PRIMARY DOESN'T COUNT. Except, y'know, for the influence it may have on the caucus next month.
I think Newt said it best: Tuesday was the end of any attempt to declare an early winner. The GOP is determined to tear itself apart during this primary season, and we're just gonna have to ride it out.
The show should be pretty good at least!
Mitt: 91/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 8/1144
Ricky: 44/1144
Source: NY Times
***
To say I'm a little surprised to hear about Ricky pulling off wins in ALL THREE CONTESTS is an understatement. As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject, I expected a very strong showing or even win for Ricky in Colorado. I mean, c'mon, Colorado Springs is home to Focus on the Family.
But as the BBC pointed out, Minnesota must have had some serious Tea Party elements who viewed Romney as too moderate. As for Missouri, no one except Santorum was there, because the PRIMARY DOESN'T COUNT. Except, y'know, for the influence it may have on the caucus next month.
I think Newt said it best: Tuesday was the end of any attempt to declare an early winner. The GOP is determined to tear itself apart during this primary season, and we're just gonna have to ride it out.
The show should be pretty good at least!
Colorado Results
| Rick Santorum | 26,614 | 40.3% |  |
| Mitt Romney | 23,012 | 34.9% | |
| Newt Gingrich | 8,445 | 12.8% | |
| Ron Paul | 7,759 | 11.8% | |
| Other | 197 | 0.3% | |
| Source: AP |
Minnesota Results
| Rick Santorum | 21,727 | 44.9% | |
| Ron Paul | 13,108 | 27.1% | |
| Mitt Romney | 8,157 | 16.9% | |
| Newt Gingrich | 5,203 | 10.8% | |
| Other | 141 | 0.3% | |
| Source: AP |
Missouri Results (Non-binding on Delegates)
| Rick Santorum | 138,957 | 55.2% | |
| Mitt Romney | 63,826 | 25.3% | |
| Ron Paul | 30,641 | 12.2% | |
| Other | 18,444 | 7.3% | |
| Source: AP |
Ohio Primary is March 6th
Just a heads up, the Ohio Primary is on March 6th. It's a lil late to be registering to vote in the primary (Ohio Election Law says you need to be registered 30 days prior to the election date).
However, if you need to register to vote, change you address, verify your registration, vote absentee, or any number of any other questions the Ohio Secretary of State website has a handy page full of useful links.
Not sure where to vote? That's more a county Board of Elections issue. However, you can easily find the site for your local Board of Elections on this handy webpage.
However, if you need to register to vote, change you address, verify your registration, vote absentee, or any number of any other questions the Ohio Secretary of State website has a handy page full of useful links.
Not sure where to vote? That's more a county Board of Elections issue. However, you can easily find the site for your local Board of Elections on this handy webpage.
Tuesday
Action Packed Week
Delegate Count!
Mitt: 85/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 8/1144
Ricky: 16/1144
Source: NY Times
***
So Romney destroys the Nevada results (50%), leaving Newt in the dust (21.1%), who barely outruns Ron (18.8%). Ricky is toddling along behind, spewing his noises of intolerance (10%). Poor widdle Wicky.
Anyhow. Today we have several votes going on...in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. Missouri sorta doesn't count, as I learned from the Huffington Post, because the state's delegates are not bound to the results. They have another process that starts next month with a caucus (complicated much?).
I'm most interested in what happens in Colorado. As the home of some serious conservative groups (Focus on the Family, for instance) Ricky is hoping he can convince them he's the most intolerant, god-fearing, would be despot in the field.
On the other hand, there's also a significant Mormon population in Colorado...which plays into Mitt's area of advantage.
BUT there's a third hand! Colorado people tend to be individualistic and anti-government. So perhaps Ron has a shot at a nice showing?
Where does Newt factor in? I have no idea. I'm quite curious, as I said. He'll prolly end up near Romney, as the "Anti-Mitt."
As for Minnesota? My money's on Mitt. Minnesota, if I may generalize and entire state, is pretty level-headed, so Ron and Ricky are out in my view. Newt will work is magic, and could possibly come in a close 2nd...but we shall see.
Mitt: 85/1144
Newt: 29/1144
Ron: 8/1144
Ricky: 16/1144
Source: NY Times
***
So Romney destroys the Nevada results (50%), leaving Newt in the dust (21.1%), who barely outruns Ron (18.8%). Ricky is toddling along behind, spewing his noises of intolerance (10%). Poor widdle Wicky.
Anyhow. Today we have several votes going on...in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. Missouri sorta doesn't count, as I learned from the Huffington Post, because the state's delegates are not bound to the results. They have another process that starts next month with a caucus (complicated much?).
I'm most interested in what happens in Colorado. As the home of some serious conservative groups (Focus on the Family, for instance) Ricky is hoping he can convince them he's the most intolerant, god-fearing, would be despot in the field.
On the other hand, there's also a significant Mormon population in Colorado...which plays into Mitt's area of advantage.
BUT there's a third hand! Colorado people tend to be individualistic and anti-government. So perhaps Ron has a shot at a nice showing?
Where does Newt factor in? I have no idea. I'm quite curious, as I said. He'll prolly end up near Romney, as the "Anti-Mitt."
As for Minnesota? My money's on Mitt. Minnesota, if I may generalize and entire state, is pretty level-headed, so Ron and Ricky are out in my view. Newt will work is magic, and could possibly come in a close 2nd...but we shall see.
Wednesday
Skipping Florida? Whuh?
Delegate Count!
Mitt: 71/1144
Newt: 23/1144
Ron: 3/1144
Ricky: 13/1144
Source: NY Times
***
So Ron and Ricky skipped Florida all together. This makes a good amount of sense...it's a winner-takes-all state as far as delegates are concerned. In NH, Paul gained a goodly number of delegates with his 2nd place finish, and even a few for his 4th place in SC. Same story with Ricky. But when there are no delegates up for grabs unless they win, why should they invest limited time and money in the race?
By focusing on Nevada and other Western states where they can pick up delegates even if they don't win, Paul and Ricky are keeping their races alive and improving their positions.
Positions for what? Is a good question.
I recently watched "Borgia" Season 1, and loved the scene where Rodrigo Borgia is threatening, pleading, bribing, and haggling his way to the Pope's hat. Specifically, there's still a deadlock, with Cardinal Sforza holding enough votes to prevent Borgia's accension...but not enough to win himself. Sforza is finally won over by the piece of wisdom: "You cannot be Pope by this Conclave, but you can be something just as good--the Pope-maker!"
Who knows what bargains will be struck when the time comes for these two to bow out? The eventual nominee will need to placate them somehow in order to avoid a protracted battle at the convention. Just another element to watch...
Mitt: 71/1144
Newt: 23/1144
Ron: 3/1144
Ricky: 13/1144
Source: NY Times
***
So Ron and Ricky skipped Florida all together. This makes a good amount of sense...it's a winner-takes-all state as far as delegates are concerned. In NH, Paul gained a goodly number of delegates with his 2nd place finish, and even a few for his 4th place in SC. Same story with Ricky. But when there are no delegates up for grabs unless they win, why should they invest limited time and money in the race?
By focusing on Nevada and other Western states where they can pick up delegates even if they don't win, Paul and Ricky are keeping their races alive and improving their positions.
Positions for what? Is a good question.
I recently watched "Borgia" Season 1, and loved the scene where Rodrigo Borgia is threatening, pleading, bribing, and haggling his way to the Pope's hat. Specifically, there's still a deadlock, with Cardinal Sforza holding enough votes to prevent Borgia's accension...but not enough to win himself. Sforza is finally won over by the piece of wisdom: "You cannot be Pope by this Conclave, but you can be something just as good--the Pope-maker!"
Who knows what bargains will be struck when the time comes for these two to bow out? The eventual nominee will need to placate them somehow in order to avoid a protracted battle at the convention. Just another element to watch...
Monday
Republican GOP Race
So, to recap:
Rick Santorum wins by a hair in Iowa, which I find truly bizarre considering how progressive Iowa tends to be. I mean, Santorum is a one-man intolerance factory. In one of the first states to legalize same-sex marriage...he has that strong a showing? Buhwah? A case of "not Romney?" Is hard to tell. You do have to give him some credit for essentially coming out of nowhere to win like that, even if the margin is pretty pathetic.
TIME had a nice story about how filthy politics can get in South Carolina, so it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that Newt Gingrich pulled off the win. What I find more interesting is that Newt is doing so strongly despite all the allegations of a debauched lifestyle so devoid of the party's prized social conservatism. It shows exactly how fragmented the base is.
Iowa Caucus:
| Rick Santorum | 29,839 | 24.6% | |
| Mitt Romney | 29,805 | 24.5% | |
| Ron Paul | 26,036 | 21.4% | |
| Newt Gingrich | 16,163 | 13.3% | |
| Rick Perry | 12,557 | 10.3% | |
| Michele Bachmann | 6,046 | 5% | |
| Jon Huntsman | 739 | 0.6% | |
| Other | 316 | 0.3% | |
| Source: AP |
Rick Santorum wins by a hair in Iowa, which I find truly bizarre considering how progressive Iowa tends to be. I mean, Santorum is a one-man intolerance factory. In one of the first states to legalize same-sex marriage...he has that strong a showing? Buhwah? A case of "not Romney?" Is hard to tell. You do have to give him some credit for essentially coming out of nowhere to win like that, even if the margin is pretty pathetic.
New Hampshire Primary
| Mitt Romney | 97,532 | 39.3% | |
| Ron Paul | 56,848 | 22.9% | |
| Jon Huntsman | 41,945 | 16.9% | |
| Newt Gingrich | 23,411 | 9.4% | |
| Rick Santorum | 23,362 | 9.4% | |
| Rick Perry | 1,766 | 0.7% | |
| Other | 3,621 | 1.5% | |
| Source: AP Not surprisingly, Romney wins in New Hampshire. I mean, the man was Governor of Massachusetts, and if he wasn't able to wield some influence in NH he didn't need to be running. Also unsurprising was Paul's showing...New Hampshire does like their against-the-grain politicians. |
South Carolina Primary:
| Newt Gingrich | 243,153 | 40.4% | |
| Mitt Romney | 167,279 | 27.8% | |
| Rick Santorum | 102,055 | 17% | |
| Ron Paul | 77,993 | 13% | |
| Other | 10,686 | 1.8% | |
| Source: AP |
What's even more interesting is we have no idea where the race is after three states. Newt and Mitt battle for the front runner spot, while Paul is in a perfect spoiler position with the number of delegates he's earned thus far. Santorum too, is keeping enough momentum going to allow him to muddy the waters.
Curious. VERY curious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
