Plans For A Cartoon Life

Wine(Accessorized)

2010-04-13T16:31:00.002-04:00

Wine(Accessorized) is now live. Check out http://www.wine-accessorized.com to get started shopping!

A Brush With Quixtar

2005-12-22T04:28:00.000-05:00

I said I wouldn't post about Quixtar anymore, but reading through Standing Order Tapes (link on sidebar) reminded me of an experience I had last month. I'll also quote the things that reminded me.

My ESS meetings are always at 8:00 PM on Thursdays in a certain lounge in the GBJ Student Center on campus. I arrived early from dinner with my girlfriend and decided to chill in the lounge and read until the other members arrived. I opened the door and walked in to find all of our couches and tables pushed to one side of the room, with a bunch of chairs arranged presentation-style towards one wall. A guy and a girl, both rather attractive and charismatic, were putting the room together for some kind of show. I noticed several things that made me immediately realize it was Quixtar:
1. They were both well-dressed, like they were going to a formal. The guy was clean-shaven. He didn't even have any stubble, so he had shaved recently. Close-cropped, gelled and styled hair. He had an earring hole but no earring. "Your look is key. You must dress ‘successfully’, for men, you should not have facial hair. Tongue rings are certainly a no no. No long hair, no piercing, etc. Doug talks about wearing his ‘uniform’. 'Dress a step above and better than the people you are around.'"
2. They had those irritating flashcard packets sitting on the table. They also had some books and other motivational supplies ready-at-hand. "Jake says, "This is the number one secret: The Britt System…You must learn how to promote and edify…if you will plug into it at all cost, it will give you life and a life of more abundance.' And Doug confirms, 'I also figured out that the Britt System was the key, and if I was going to sponsor people, I had to have the books and tapes to get them started right.'"
3. They had some Quixtar-brand foods, all half-consumed (or thrown away/poured out) around their stations, like they'd been enjoying a snack. "Doug pounds hard on personal use, suggesting that people are not getting in their business because they do not believe. Doug even tells people plainly to buy products they do not have a use for so that they can at least say they use it. Jake confirms with a joke about panty-hose."

I stood in the door for a little, surveying the scene, when they finally notice me.
"Are you here for the meeting?" Asked the girl. She and the fella put on huge grins and opened their body posture immediately.
"No, actually, I have a meeting here in a half-hour."
"Oh," replied the guy. "Well, if you wanted this room you should have reserved it..." He glanced at the reservation board. "Oh wow... I see..." He looked really uncomfortable, but he still tried to hold that grin.
"Do you REALLY need the room?" The girl asked, smiling as sweetly as ever. I think she might've even given me Bambi eyes.
"Yeah, we reserved it."
"Oh, ok. We'll get right out of your way, then." The guy packed up his bag, picking up the food and making sure I saw the labels before he put it away. They moved towards the exit. He looked at me expectantly. "You want me to move these back to where they were?" I stopped, wondering why he didn't just do it, since he had messed it up.
"I guess it's fine if you don't... if you're in a hurry..."
"Nonsense," he replied. "I'd be glad to do it." He didn't move yet, however.
"One last thing," she began, "Would you be interested in an opportunity for free money?"
"No, thank you," I replied. Her smile fell.
"What do you mean, no? Don't you like money?" The guy shifted uncomfortably next to her.
"Not if I'm earning it through an MLM."
"MLM? What's that?" She almost sounded honest.
"Multi-Level Marketing? You guys are with Quixtar, right?"
She placed her hands on her hips, pouting at me indignantly. "Oh, you think you know about that, huh?"
"I know enough about it. I know it's not something I want to do."
"Well, that's fine," The guy said. If I were close enough, he might have pattted me on the head. "This kind of opportunity is not for everyone. It's understandable if you don't want to take it." They left, leaving behind the mess of chairs and tables for me to fix.

Happy Holidays!

2005-12-20T20:02:00.000-05:00

Is what the clerk at Parisian said to me. She then looked so frightened and worried that she had to turn around and hide her eyes. I was concerned about it, but I soon remembered what had happened. In Alabama, there has been a massive boycott organized by fundamental Christians who believe that any store whose clerks do not greet their customers with "Merry Christmas" must be deprived of their customers. They've boycotted Wal-Mart, Target, and many stores at the mall here in Huntsville, Alabama.
Now, I can be forgiving of this ridiculous venture as long as nobody actually takes them seriously... after all, what harm is saying two little words? Unfortunately, they're not so forgiving about forgetting to say them. My mother, who works at GAP at one of the malls in Huntsville, thanked a customer after ringing her up by saying, "Thank you very much," with a genuine smile. She turned around to put some hangers in a bin, thinking the transaction was over. The woman reached over the counter, grabbed her arm and squeezed it, and said, "You mean Merry Christmas," with malice and a glare. I think that before they ask to be pandered to they should work on their attitude.

I read a guy (we'll call him B. Johnson) who explained the inappropriateness of their protest against the "Happy Holidays" catch-all this season. I pasted an excerpt below:

The vast majority of the born-again-Christians who are so uptight about Happy Holidays vs Merry ChristMASS have no use for the theology of transubstantiation which is the basis of the mass celebrated by devout Roman Catholics. When the priest blesses the the bread/wafer and the wine, they immediately become the flesh and blood of Jesus. So if these born-again-pro-tes-tant Christians are so strongly opposed to the doctrine of transubstantiation, why they so agressively promoting ChristMASS in preference to Happy Holidays?

To be honest, they can do what they want with their energies. If this is makes them feel productive, it's better than them pushing the Moral Majority agenda over the holidays. I just worry about independent businesses who will be hurt financially because they would rather be inclusive...

Demonizing Liberalism

2005-11-30T22:56:00.000-05:00

I wrote an editorial for submission to various locations of printability... for an Advanced Comp assignment, that is. It's something that I (obviously) feel strongly about...

“Liberals hate America.” - Ann Coulter.
The past 5 years of American politics have seen a rise in rabid partisanship, bitterly dividing communities and families between the Red and the Blue. This isn’t to say that there were no disagreements prior to 2000; I know my family has always argued about the merits of differing political ideologies. However, the pitch of confrontations between liberals and conservatives has risen into something that could very well be a war. Rather than debate, the popular way to try to discredit one’s opponent in this atmosphere is now wholly dependent on propaganda. The difference between liberals and conservatives, now, is the level of success in this new arena, where the conservatives have wholly dominated.
Whoever controls the rhetoric controls the public opinion. This is how it has always been. Sometimes opposing groups both manage to define their side positively, such as in abortion (pro-life instead of anti-choice, pro-choice instead of pro-abortion). Up until now, it has been relatively even in terms of which group defines what. Rhetoric that casts both sides in a positive light prevails, and the opposition acquiesces because they, too, are getting the gentle treatment. There is only one term in politics, however, that has held a strange dichotomy for several decades: liberal. The term liberal, to conservatives, at best signifies a restless movement, a constant dissatisfaction with the status quo. At worst, they describe liberalism as an attack on fundamental values and morality, an atheistic movement and interference in the free market. They often equate the liberal ideals with communism. The funny thing is, though, liberalism used to be something that they welcomed into their discourse and their strategy and even once employed as a political weapon against the USSR. Even today, they embrace economic liberalism, though they claim not to, redefining it as their own in “fiscal conservatism.”
The Liberal movement began as humanism during the Renaissance, a school of thought that questioned the authority of the church to impose law and sanctions on the people. Centuries later, in the Enlightenment era, free thinkers such as John Locke and Adam Smith injected the movement with the revolutionist idea of natural rights, that there were certain freedoms that no government could violate. The economic aspect contended that a free marketplace was the only way to provide economic equality, that people who were forced to share wealth would find ways to avoid it. By the end of the 19th century, the movement had split into two groups: economic liberalism and social liberalism. Conservatives embody the former completely, contending that any unnecessary interference in free-market economics is an encroachment of communism and an assault on capitalism. Present-day liberals trend towards social liberalism, claiming that the government should enforce individual rights when the people infringe upon them.
Liberalism was largely uncontested as a movement until the 70s, during the Nixon era. Tensions over the failure of organized labor, the Nixon administration, and the failed Vietnam War (a liberal endeavor) led to a rise in conservatism. Once Americans became disenchanted with liberalism, the demonizing began. Splits in the Civil Rights Movement began to side almost all liberals with the Democratic side, giving conservatives, for the first time, the ability to attack the side as a single ideology. It was then that the misleading and redefinition of “liberal” began.
The neo-conservative movement is wholly based upon these attacks upon liberalism. They have managed to dirty the word to mean hatred for the American way of life, communistic, anti-Christianity, anti-patriotism, sympathy for terrorists, and disregard for human life. Coulter, for example, has never mentioned “liberal” without bringing up abortion or atheism, cementing the view of liberals as wanting to “kill babies” and destroy God. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, also attacked liberalism and humanism: “We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today... our battle is with Satan himself.” Liberals have yet to respond to (or sink to the level of) these false characterizations. The attacks have only increased now that conservatives hold a majority in both elected branches of government, and conservatives claim that America is leaving liberalism behind. They like to forget that the country was founded on liberal principles, the idea that government should support individual freedom, as long as others’ rights are not encroached upon, and rarely limit it. Marc Forné i Molné, former president of Andorra and current president of the Liberal Party of Andorra, said it best: “Discoveries made during the last hundred years have shown that liberalism is the best system to improve a country's well being.” It is always the best idea to embrace change and freedom over the status quo.
Unfortunately, the term “liberal” has now been redefined as a pejorative, allowing pundits such as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity to spit the word with utter contempt, using it as a defense when their own position is indefensible. This has been transferred to the common man, providing non-politicians with ammunition for debates of their own, though I use the term loosely. The malice is most evident in online forums, with neo-conservatives calling out liberals as “libtards,” “libshits,” and other dubiously respectful terms, asking them to define their position as bait for more liberal-themed taunting. Honest, cool debates can sometimes be found, but by and large any mention of the word “liberal” signifies a decline in reason and a rash of name-calling soon to follow.
The Virginia election of 2005 was a showcase of the hatred for liberals that conservatives want to ingrain in mainstream America. Each Republican candidate had at least one ad attacking their opponent as being “liberal,” treating it as a horrific negative. It’s a shame that the best attack on Kaine, other than “he’s going to raise your gas taxes,” as Kilgore so eloquently stated, restated, and stated again, was that he is liberal. According to Republicans, Attorney General candidate Creigh Deeds was a liberal, which is appalling in itself. This combined with the fact that, as a private attorney, he plea bargained his clients out of jail time, should be enough to frighten away all mainstream voters from the liberal threat. The commercial, of course, neglects to mention that Deeds supported more “conservative” positions, such as 2nd amendment rights, than most Democrats, meaning he is truly in support of individual freedom, the actual, original meaning of the word “liberal.” Leslie Byrne was attacked even more mercilessly than the others. In one commercial, a picture of her flashed in one corner, while “LIBERAL” flashed in large red letters in the lower right-hand corner. Nothing else was offered as proof of her ineptitude. Another commercial alternated the word “liberal” with “reckless,” suggesting that all liberals have a dangerous disregard for established law. Because of the success in demonizing this political view, these irresponsible and misleading attacks proved victorious, which will likely cause more of the same attacks in elections to follow. Byrne was soundly defeated by her much less qualified opponent, while Deeds lost a recount by 300 votes. Only Kaine won, and solidly, which hopefully demonstrated that the attack using “liberal” in a derogatory way is changing as a viable campaign option.
So what is left for the liberals of America? Some have abandoned ship, adopting the term “progressive” in order to escape the hex that has been placed upon their 200+ year-old tradition of support for the people. The political ideology that was coopted into every surviving political party since the beginning of the country is being discarded by a defeated Democrat Party. If the liberals become desperate, they may shuffle loose their identity that Wesley Clark describes as “loving and embracing all genders, sexual orientations, races, religions, physical and economic conditions,” in favor of a more electable, conservative bent. The Democratic Leadership Committee is one indication of this change, reining in the more centrist democrats into a ideology that tries to straddle the fence without losing its base. Will this be the death of liberalism, the school of thought that raised a superpower, despite the claims of neo-conservatives to the contrary? I hope that the American people are smarter than this, realizing that the word “liberal,” whether prefixed with “bleeding-heart,” “knee-jerk,” or “tax and spend,” doesn’t have to be so dirty after all.

Election Thoughts

2005-11-09T07:58:00.000-05:00

Why are voters so stupid? Really...

Aside from VA and NJ, where the centrist Democrat defeated an extreme right-wing Republican (thank you very much), as well as Maine, where voters shot down a conservative attempt to repeal a gay rights law, voters just displayed their idiocy in massive quantities.
Shall we start in Texas, where they amended the constitution with a "traditional marriage" amendment? Gays couldn't get married in Texas anyways... what this amendment did was use intentionally vague wording to further strip the rights from gays (such as potentially the ability to visit one another in case of grave illness) as well as override court attempts to regain ground that gays had lost. What can you expect from Bush's "home" state (it's as real as that drawl he's been trained to dribble from the side of his smirk). But, of course, it was touted as a "protect the sanctity of marriage" vote and not "stomp the queers out of Texas" vote... I hate Texas and 90% of politicians involved with it.
Or how about Ohio, where the controversy for both parties during the election struck? Proposals to clean up, expedite, and protect the electoral process were soundly defeated due to Republican opposition. Great idea... listen to the people who screwed you over last year...
Now California... Schwarzenegger put 3 important proposals on the ballot that anyone with sense would have agreed with... nevermind the other, less meritable ones... and they were voted down because the people were convinced that the election was "unnecessary." I mean, Christ, people... a Republican offers you a chance to put redistricting in the hands of a non-partisan group, guaranteeing fair and equal elections in EVERY COUNTY, and you vote him down because you don't like him spending the money? Or how about the increased requirements for teachers to become tenured? 2 years to determine if a teacher is a fluke before you HAVE to give them tenure? Who doesn't think that's ridiculous?!? And, of course, the proposal to give the power to LIMIT STATE SPENDING... the problem that they have been having for decades now... and it's probably the Hollywood bias against anything conservative in nature BUT NOT ALL CONSERVATIVE PROPOSALS ARE BAD! Anyone who cannot find merits in both sides is too partisan. Honestly...
And last, but not least, Kansas. The bass-ackwards state. The school board voted to put evolution in the same group as Intelligent Design (aka Creationism part two) as well as order teachers to voice serious doubt as to the validity of this "unproven" theory. Thanks a lot... now can we get the church board to vote to put evolution in church? After all, the fundies and neocons claim that "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creationism." Why shouldn't we put it in the house of faith.
So Kaine won, Corzine won, and gay rights won in Maine. At least Virginia is starting a tradition of rationality, and New Jersey demonstrated that a "gay scandal" is not nearly as bad as close-minded assholes make it out to be.
Thank god all the commercials demonizing liberals will stop. Tim Kaine is "too liberal to be governor"? That's like saying water is too wet to be refreshing...

The Dirty "L" Word

2005-10-19T02:28:00.000-04:00

I don't really have a response to this, except that I agree completely. Many Republicans are calling us "liberal" like it's a Hell-worthy trespass, and I take enormous offense to it. I don't hear liberals use the word "conservative" with such malice... unless blindly attacked by a conservative in that manner. Check the Yahoo! message boards if you don't believe me about the gross intolerance of the right wing.

Moderate Voters Aren't So Moderate

Scandal or Alleged Smear Campaign?

2005-10-13T12:59:00.000-04:00

A letter to the editor in the Collegiate Times today called upon the Republican voters to hold their parties responsible for their corrupt behavior, citing three "scandals." One was, as the Democrats call it, "Plamegate," the exposure of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame by White House staff, culminating in a federal investigation and the subsequent jailing of Judith Miller for refusing to testify. The second is Tom DeLay's indictments, accusing him and two others of fraud by laundering campaign contributions from corporations. The third is Bill Frist's supposed insider trading, the same crime that landed Martha Stewart in prison. Only one, the DeLay incident, has resulted in indictments, though the Democrats are clamoring for all three to be brought to justice. The writer mentions one scandal on the Democrat side, the Steele credit report. The writer claims that the Democrats complied voluntarily and enthusiastically, firing the staff member guilty. Whether this is true or not I personally cannot say, so I decided to look online for recent Democratic scandals (Bush era). I can only assume that a Republican will fire back, trying to find these. I want to see just how valid the response would be.

The first several searches I did took me eventually to the Center For Individual Freedom, where I found the story of a scandal called "Memogate." I have to say that I am personally biased against the CFIF, if only because it is a reactionary group steadfastly opposing the ACLU. They actually support many blanket proposals that would limit personal freedoms, namely those proposed by the "moral majority," which demonstrates they wish to disguise partisan support with a friendly non-partisan name. Regardless, I read the article, and here is my interpretation:
1) FOX News, as well as a handful of columnists, reported that allegedly there were memos distributed between Senate Democrats that conspired to filibuster nominees based on political reasons.
2) The CFIF calls on the Department of Justice for a full investigation into the Democrats refusal to produce the alleged memos as well as the reported "puzzling and disheartening acquiescence of Senate Republicans."
3) The memos refer to several liberal interest groups who have a case present or upcoming in the districts where judges are up for nomination.
4) The memos state that Democrats discussed the possibility of moving circuit judges' confirmation hearings to later dates, hoping that critical cases (the U Mich affirmative action case is one named) will be in favor of the Democrat-supported interest groups.
5) The senators named are the more extreme liberals in the Senate: Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Edwards, etc.

As an immediate counter, though, the next search I did led me to yet another Republican scandal. Apparently, in order to get their hands on these memos, Republicans infiltrated the file systems of a Democrat's computer. The Boston Globe said it best:
From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.
The suspicion was aroused when several top secret memos were printed in conservative columns, notably Robert Novak's (he was also involved with the Plamegate scandal mentioned above).

To me, this "scandal" is mere partisan conflict, and the Republicans actually committed more of an ethical lapse just to raise suspicion about the Democrats' actions. Of course the Democrats are going to discuss blocking judges... the Republicans did the same when Clinton was in office. Also, interest groups have every right to lobby their politicians for a certain judge; in fact, the right-to-lifers are perhaps the most vocal of all interest groups, and they most certainly are not liberal.

After a half hour of searching, I could find no other recent scandal to post. My opinion is this: I don't like the Democratic party right now. They are way too dependent on partisan hackery. Unlike the Republican party, however, they owned up to the one scandal that involved a crime, refusing to even give credibility to the other, non-publicized "scandal." Republicans completely blame partisan media bias and investigators for their woes. Just listen to Tom DeLay's or Bill Frist's next statement to see how they treat the investigations.

Update:: I was too harsh on Frist. His allies are the ones who are attacking the investigators. Frist believes there was legitimate doubt and is cooperating fully with the investigation without complaint. He has every right to contest that he is innocent.

Red America vs. Blue America

2005-10-06T13:22:00.000-04:00

In my very, very slight amount of free time this month, I stumbled upon a piece called "Paranoid Left, Paranoid Right," an investigative journalist's view of the great divide in politics today. Rather than faulting one side, as most biased (and worthless) attempts to address this, he (Dick Meyer) merely points out the rather absurd beliefs that both sides hold. The paragraph that particularly caught my eye was this:

The great dynamic is that so many people — politically engaged people, not most people, not most voters as is too often argued — are convinced that a malevolent opponent wants to destroy their very way of life and has the power to do so. Evangelical Christians may believe that gay marriage, abortion rights, promiscuous and violent popular culture and gun control are all part of a plot to destroy their community of values. Urban, secular liberals may believe that presidential God-talk, anti-abortion legislators and judges, intrusive Homeland Security programs and imperialist wars are part of sinister cabal to quash their very way of life.

The simple point is this. Liberals are not out to destroy Christianity; to say so is an insult to a great many religious Democrats and Independents. The point that every one of them wants to make is that gay marriage and abortion are personal choice, personal morality, and thus should not be banned by a blanket decision. Some are not so forgiving of Christian interference, mostly the angry west-coast atheists. However, these people are a vast minority and should not represent us, as some political figures would like the country to believe. To go right along with this... conservatives do have a point in that religion is not banned from government. The state is just not allowed to establish one religion as the official one. Now, certain cases, such as the 10 Commandments and others, the establishment of religious aspects in government can infringe upon the rights of others, and that is where the line has been drawn and will be drawn. Gun control is something they feel should be left up to themselves. While I personally feel this cannot succeed because of irresponsibility that is always a part of human nature, I do agree that they should have a right to bear arms.
The only thing I don't agree with completely is that, although there is no such sinister cabal of Republicans, the point that many of them make is exactly that they want to repair the morality of the country. This is a hurdle that will forever separate the two groups: one group wants to impose a belief upon another group, and the oppressed group wants to make decisions on their own. Examples: Pro-lifers want to ban abortion, pro-choicers say "don't get one if you don't like it." Pro-gun control people want to severely limit the ways of obtaining weapons, the pro-gun people desire them for completely understandable reasons: protection and sport. Pro-war people believe it is American to spread democracy and prosperity, even if force is required. Anti-war people believe it is un-American to push their system on another country. The divide will always remain, and there seems to be little chance for compromise or for understanding.
One quick note: Meyer also points out that both sides believe that the media is biased against the other. Browsing through the headlines at FOX News, CBS, NBC, and Yahoo! gave me the following:
FOX
"Bush: Iraq Will Be Cleared of Terrorists 'City by City'" - No surprise here. The story is wholly about Bush's plan to clear Iraq. The article is nearly free of opposition or counterargument; the only quote that does oppose is from Harry Reid, and it is summarily blasted as ludicrous by the writer. They do quote a Democratic pollster, but the two polls, one conservatively taken and another liberally taken, are not equally favored.
"Frist, Warner at Odds Over Defense Bill" - This article is similar to the Yahoo! article below, though it differs in a few respects. It focuses on the conflict between two Republicans over the bill. It paints Bill Frist as an opportunistic presidential candidate wanna-be clashing with John Warner and the others over the bill. The story itself has a liberal slant in that the more conservative view, demonstrated by Frist, is given little time to develop, while the other senators who support the measure are given enough time to state their case.
(there were no more front-page headlines on FOX)

Yahoo! - Top Stories
"Bush: Radicals seek to intimidate world" - a piece that presents several quotes from Bush without contradicting or attacking them.
"US Soldier Is Among 21 Killed in Iraq" - a sprawling piece that, again, presents Bush quotes without attacking them, though it mentions the "Notorious" Abu Gharib prison. It also supports the conservative belief that Iran is supporting the insurgents
"Bush says more sacrifice needed in war on terror" - a report with a liberal slant, using words that qualify Bush's actions like "tried" and "attempted." It contains a quote of Harry Reid attacking Bush with a rebuttal from Bush.
"US says W. Iraq operations to run until election" - a report that presents the Bush side of the Iraqi conflict, citing examples such as the porous border faulted towards the other countries, the decision to fight the insurgents rather than bargain with them, and destroying certain parts of the Iraqi infrastructure to trap insurgents. No countering arguments or quotes are supplied.
"Senate, House to Clash Over Military Bill" - it's difficult to describe this story as anything other than anti-Bush, anti-Pentagon in that McCain's bill that would limit presidential power in wartime and also require fair treatment to insurgents and POWs alike, something that Pentagon and its supporters vehemently oppose. Republicans and Democrats alike are quoted, and the skew the article has is against the 9 senators who opposed the bill and the house reps who wish to dismantle it.

After visiting CBS and NBC, I noticed similar stories were on these sites as well. The point is there is NO bias... AP and Reuters and the others are not biased completely one way. Some writers are, but the distribution of these is similar to the country itself. Perhaps it's because the loudest pundits change week to week. Perhaps the Weekly Standard, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity will receive all the publicity one day, while the next the Huffington Post steals the show with some trivial insiders perspective. The point is accusing an entire media of bias is irresponsibility at its worst. I watched Hannity assault the Mexican Consul with all sorts of thinly veiled insults because he refused to tell Hannity that there was a major problem with illegal immigration. Whenever he tried to explain his position, Hannity would interrupt him with some condescending remark and ask the question again. FOX News is obviously a highly conservative station. I have no taste for them. Other stations are more liberally slanted than FOX, but not one of them is consistently liberal. It all depends on which political party screwed up that week. Conservatives complain about the attention Karl Rove receives, or the lack of sound bites from Bush, or that they didn't use this particular poll. It's not a liberal bias, it's just what's most appropriate. Liberals complain that the Bush agenda isn't questioned enough in the news, that a lot of White House "mistakes" are not publicized enough, and that the images of the war in Iraq are too fluffy compared to the rest of the world's coverage. This isn't a conservative slant, that's just profitable reporting. TV news is never a way to get complete coverage of anything. Internet is changing this, and people are starting to realize it through blogging and discussion boards. So please, next time anyone thinks to accuse any media of being biased... just deal with it and watch your preferred station.

P.S. I'm not participating in the Quixtar discussion any longer. Continue to comment as you wish, but I'm no longer answering questions. Let's face it, if you don't agree with me now, I won't change your mind. Attacking me won't change mine either. It's my opinion, take it as you will, and go on with your life.

Birth Control

2005-09-10T02:23:00.000-04:00

Ladies and gentlemen, we have the #1 argument against birth control from a "Christian Counselor."

"Christian couples are entitled to know that some methods of birth control can be deadly for their unborn children."

And here I thought the reason that birth control was used was so that children COULD be born.

My first post in a month and it took a sentence like that to prompt one. Oh well...

How NOT to Get Screwed in Quixtar

2005-08-11T20:55:00.000-04:00

Did you love my diatribe? Hate it? Not really care? Whatever the case, I am back to balance it out. If you'll notice, I didn't COMPLETELY condemn the business. The business model itself is sound... IF the Lines of Support preached it correctly. Unfortunately, many of the lines merely turn the legitimate business into a Ponzi scheme (a method where the bottom level pays money that reaches the top, and those who pay must find others below them to pay their dues). And, just a by-the-way, the FTC never EXPLICITLY found that Amway was a legitimate business in their 1979 ruling; they just found that it didn't violate the standard test for pyramid schemes... read the decision if you doubt me. You will not see them state word for word that they are satisfied with Amway's status as a business. Regardless of the legality of the business itself, I have for you, as told by successful IBOs, the three steps to survive Quixtar.

Step One: Avoid the tools! Many of the Lines of Support, all listed here (http://www.amquix.info/quixtar_los.html), require you to sign a contract upon entry, guaranteeing your purchase of a certain amount of motivational tools and tickets to functions. Notice the first, and arguably the most controversial, is BWW (Britt Worldwide). They require you to buy 2 tapes a week, 1 book a month, and attend 1 seminar a month. The tapes are $7.50 each. The required 2 tapes a week are $15.00, times 4 weeks a month is $60 a month. This is not including the book and the seminar, plus whatever you voluntarily spend. The next group, WWDB (World-Wide Dream Builders) has a formula so complicated I don't want to try to calculate it for you. Trust me, it's quite a bit (or calculate it yourself if you don't believe me). You could also look at Globalnet, which charges $70 a month for tools, not including whatever you voluntarily spend (or are coerced into buying). Basically, what I'm pointing out is that, no matter which group you join, you'll be shelling out the big bucks for useless crap. Check out the link to Standing Order Tapes (http://bwwsot.blogspot.com) to get the gist of what is in each tape. Like I pointed out in my earlier post, this is an unavoidable expense that ALL IBOs must shell out. The list goes on, and in every one you are shelling out some kind of money, far from the "one-time investment" that Quixtar supposedly offers. And because Quixtar won't hire you directly, you can't get around it.

So can do you do to avoid this? Don't join one of those groups! Or avoid buying the tools at all costs. Beware though, your upline will coerce you and (most likely) neglect you if you don't contribute. Or ask around for a group that doesn't have these tools, as they will most likely be an honest organization. The tools, as you see from the sidebar link, contain little of use. If you aren't feeling the "excitement" they say is required, with or without tapes, you need to get out. This business requires your devotion and fervor.

Step two: Don't Buy from Yourself! In the more controversial groups, the up-line encourages you to buy from yourself and tell your down-line to do the same. This is an unofficial Ponzi scheme, where you MUST have recruits to profit. They'll say at first "100-150 PV is enough to sustain the chain." So you buy that (a few hundred bucks a month), and you lose a little money. Then you start getting more down-line. They then say "step it up to 300 PV." So you buy and lose even more money. In order to make up for this loss, you will need many more recruits. That's one method of motivation: recruit or go broke.

How do you avoid this? Don't spend a dime on yourself! Not only is this the unethical way to establish a down-line, but it's dangerous as well. No one said you have to set an example for your down-line in this manner except your up-line, who most likely was sold on this method long ago. The worst part is that, if you do make money, it is not very much, and it is all at the expense of others who weren't so lucky. Once the market saturates, despite claims by up-lines that this would never happen (how many people do you really think will buy Amway when they have Sam's Club, Walmart, Kroger's, GNC, Walgreen's, etc.?), the people who joined late will be screwed. Do you want to get caught in or even support this trap? So the way to ETHICALLY AND LEGALLY run this business is to teach your down-line to buy only what they want and what they think they can sell. Or sign up clients and members who aren't business savvy and just want access to Amway products. You're not making the promised 250,000 a year this way, but you're not stepping on anyone or even taking a moderate risk to get to your level.

Step Three: Don't Quit Your Day Job! But don't take it from me; take it from the hundreds of thousands of people who got into Quixtar/Amway with the promise of easy money, then quit their jobs to make room for the 15/month STP, 4 functions a month, meetings twice a week, self-promoting, web-making... I can go on. Suffice it to say that the effort they originally promised, part-time work for full-time salary, is complete BS. Once you're in, they tell you that yes, you could work part-time if you want... part-time pay! They suggest full-time work to make more money, or even MORE THAN FULL-TIME to make the big bucks. So you put 50, 60, 70 hours a week into a business that has a low profit margin NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU SELL. Selling the plan to strangers consumes every evening because your friends back off from your obsession. Eventually, after you mortgage your house twice and borrow against all your possessions, you MAY turn a profit. Calculate, based on the tools, the cost to keep a Standing Order of all your products, and your living expenses, all against how much you can borrow or save. 2-3 years is what it'll take before you break 5 figures a year, I guarantee. That's still only 10,000 dollars. Remember, any success stories you hear are from people who made their money from 2001 or earlier. The market is becoming saturated, whether your up-line admits it or not, and it's getting exponentially harder to turn a profit every year. Here's a number a Platinum IBO gave me. Less than 1%. That's the percent of IBOs that reach Platinum. Do you know what the average salary of a Platinum is? About $25,000. That's another number a Platinum IBO gave me. So over 99% of people never reach Platinum, where less than half at this level MIGHT make $25,000. Translation? Your chances of living off this business are slim-to-null. See above about your dwindling chances in a saturating market.

Update: I visited a site recommended to me by an IBO, ThisBizNow, a pro-Quixtar site with facts and quotes supporting the business. There I found the numbers from Quixtar itself for the number of Diamonds, Emeralds, and Q-12 Platinums (not to be confused with just Platinums, these are a higher level):
"*The following are approximate percentages of Direct Fulfillment IBOs of record in North America who achieved the illustrated levels of success in the calendar year ending December 31, 2004: Diamond .0176%; Emerald .0420%; Q-12 Platinum .2440%."
We'll crunch this a bit further. The average gross earnings of a Q-12 Platinum is $41,970, including all bonuses, cash payments, and earnings related to the business. It only includes expenses related to cost of product. It does not include other expenses such as advertising, support line expenses (tools, meetings, functions), or any "discretionary" business expenses. I've been insulted for my choice of a "job" over the Quixtar dream. If I get the job I'm aiming for, a professorship, do you know what the entry level salary is? $55,000. And I have a much, much better chance than 1 in 400 of making that. 1 in 400 is the chance of you or any other person becoming a Q-12 Platinum. Once I become tenured, a guarantee if I do even a decent job for several years, my salary would start at a mere $75,000, or $4,000 above the average earnings of an Emerald DD. The chance of you reaching Emerald is about 1 in 2400. And, of course, if I manage to make seniority or move to administration, I would break $100,000 and have many, many benefits at no additional cost, not to mention a complete retirement plan. So, sure, a Diamond would make $175,000, but they're paying everything out of their pocket. No stock options, no health insurance, the retirement plan is essentially how much they can save... and the chance of becoming a Diamond is about 1 in 6500. All these numbers are based off information from ThisBizNow.com. The odds are stacked against you, and certainty is anything but a part of this business.

How do you avoid this? If you want to keep this part-time, on the side of a real job, that's fine! I know of many people who set a goal of 500 a month, attain it, and maintain their down-line. That's a good amount of spending cash for little more than maintenance hours on your down-line. DO NOT expect to retire on this, or even live off of it. Just treat it as a source of cheap cash. Remember, this is if you conduct yourself ethically. If you break the system, make it to where you're selling tools, you will make a lot more, the amounts the big wigs promised. But those privileged few are maybe 1 in 10,000. Don't count on it happening to you.

So there you go. An honest look at the system. If you work your ass off, you might BARELY make enough to go paycheck to paycheck. And even then you depend mostly on your down-line to stay productive. Depending on this system has put many, many people in debt. A few have escaped with a decent living, but they all started well before now. If you've been in it less than a year, I wouldn't hope for enough cash to live. But it is your decision; I just researched your chances. This is all based on the advice of IBOs that have made money from the business ethically (and in the first couple years of this century, I might add), so I pulled nothing out of the air. Check my numbers, check my assertions, and prove me wrong if you believe I am.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

How NOT to Achieve the American Dream

2005-08-07T23:05:00.000-04:00

This weekend was supposed to be perfect: volleyball from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon, tossing back the High Life with friends, and a movie or two with the lady. Well, volleyball was rained out on Saturday and Sunday, and though the movie and the beer went as planned, an ugly monster reared its head. Sunday at lunch, 4 of my friends and I were out to lunch and discussing, among other things, money problems and financial plans. Two friends from Lynchburg eventually brought up their own plans for the future: Quixtar. If you don't know what Quixtar is, it is an MLM (multi-level marketing) scheme brought to you by the makers of the oft-questioned and unethical Amway.

The way the program works, and I've had it explained to me by several friends suckered in by the promise of "free money," is this: you sign up for one of 3 codes: client, member, or IBO (independent business owner). A client code allows you to buy their own generic and rather underwhelming line-up of name-brand knock-offs as well as select items from partner corporations like Circuit City. You pay full-price in what is more or less a 2nd-rate Wal-mart online. A member code is different. You pay a membership fee (like Sam's Club) and get access to specials and discounts on wholesale items. Finally, the bulk of the group contains the IBOs. These folks get a wholesale extravaganza, with deep discounts on a wide variety of products and a chance to sell them to make a decent profit. They also will receive commission based on how much they buy. Another perk that Quixtar tosses out is if one gets others to sign up under them as clients, members, or IBOs, anything the underlings buy/sell will also earn their "up-line" a commission. Anyone below them that signs up additional people will also earn the original seller a commission. Now, the company also promises certain perks based on how much merchandise is moved below IBOs and by IBOs, setting top-end goals of "Emerald" and "Diamond" sellers who earn massive cash bonuses every month. Sounds like a pyramid scheme, right? They also don't enforce the law that Amway skirted around, the "rules requiring distributors to sell to at least 10 retail customers per month and to sell 70% of the products to customers." A way around the law, as well, is that the sign-up fee does not go to the person above you; rather, it goes straight to the company, who pockets the fee and sets you on your merry way, attaching your fate to the person whose code you used to sign up. The name they give themselves is "multi-level marketers," diagrammed not as a pyramid but as a web. The discrepancy there is dubious... pyramids have levels, webs don't. Every time one of the IBOs has offered to take me under their wing, they cringed at the word "pyramid." They also were immediately set on the defensive, clutching at technicalities that distinguished Quixtar from a pyramid scheme, a strategy no doubt inflicted upon them by their superiors. They spout on about how they will invest 10-15 hours a week and spend the rest of the time counting their money and enjoying life. One of my friends even spoke about how she could lie on a beach day in and day out, generating revenue all the while.

The whole cash-for-nothing deal sounds like a win-win situation, right? Quixtar is quick to point out that you could make 250,000 a year easily. While this is true, there are several facts to consider. First, the "Emerald" and "Diamond" sellers are mostly the original sellers, most likely with the company from day one. The rags-to-riches success stories that they spray across their followers at conventions are misleading: most of them didn't rise to wealth; they already had it. Those few that did make it from poverty got lucky. I challenge any member of Quixtar to find me a high-level seller that began after the year 2000 (Quixtar "revolutionized" the scene in 1999). So the goal is 250,000 dollars a year? Check Quixtar's website, and all the claims of massive salaries and no-effort comfortable living are rampant. Quixtar's IBO website especially seems like the program book for a cult (ironic, as some psychologists have described the ideal mindset of Quixtar IBOs as "cult mind control"), with such non-answers in their FAQ section that it's hard to take it all seriously unless you desperately are seeking hope. I point you to this site: Quixtar Questions ...most of the answers seem to be the work of brainwashers, playing off the numerous people who have sued Quixtar for ruining them financially saying, "the larger and higher profile a business, like Quixtar the larger target it provides for attracting lawsuits, no matter how unjustified the lawsuit is." Or see their response to "When I search Quixtar on the Internet, I find some negative stuff. What's up with that?" They demean the tons of research and whistle blowing as "some negative stuff," then go on to say that you shouldn't judge unless all the facts are on the table. They can't say that the "negative stuff" is false, because they'd be flat-out lying. Also note that the answer to the question "How much money can I really earn?" is answered non-committally... that profit is largely determined by "personal effort and the entrepreneurial nature of the business. Buried deep within a lot of legal jargon on another was the average yearly salary of an active IBO: 1400 dollars. That's your average reward for 10-15 hours a week. To put it in perspective, someone working at minimum wage for 10-15 hours a week will earn between 2600 and 4000 dollars. The average IBO is working for a wage of 1.80-2.70 dollars an hour. Also, to again put your chances in perspective: for every person that earns 250,000 dollars a year from the company, 178 people have to make absolutely no money to keep the 1,400 dollar average. I should also note that this figure, from ThisBizNow, is for active IBOs, which is 66% of the Quixtar force. These are IBOs who are ACTIVELY trying to make money with this, either through retail or by showing the plan. Not IBOs who buy for themselves, or IBOs who just signed up and waited for money. I've heard quite a bit of criticism of those building a case against Quixtar saying that the numbers are skewed due to inactive IBOs. The numbers come with a footnote that qualifies it further:
"Based on an independent survey during 2001. 'Active' means an IBO attempted to make a retail sale, or presented the Independent Business Ownership Plan, or received bonus money, or attended a company or IBO meeting in the year 2000. 'Gross Income' means the amount received from retail sales, minus the cost of goods sold, plus the amount of Performance Bonus retained. There may be significant business expenses, mostly discretionary, that may be greater in relation to income in the first year of operation."
These are not numbers made up by critics who want to see you fail; this is fact from an advocacy site, skewed towards the positive if anything. This also, of course, doesn't include the non-required expenses, namely motivational tools. I looked into this expense below:

Update: Special thanks to xanadustc for parsing his motivational tapes (the link is on the sidebar). Here is the list of cult-like thinking known as the Power Three:
Power of Unity – Only do what is taught by the system. Do not try to ‘reinvent the wheel’ or do things your own way. Me: (whereas common sense demonstrates that the system merely fills the pockets of your upline)
Power of Submission – Always be in submission to your upline.
Power of the Spoken Word – Always speak in the positive, confess in the positive, and never speak anything negative or anything that you don’t want to happen.

Probably the largest scam of the whole company is the sales of "tapes, books, and tickets," or the motivational tools of the IBO. The average active IBO makes 1400 a year. The average IBO also spends 60 dollars a month on motivational CDs, tapes, and books. In addition to this, the average IBO also spends 50 dollars a month on tickets to high-profile conventions, parties, meetings, and the like. So with the 1400 a year, minus 720 a year for motivational tools, minus 600 a year for the meetings, the average IBO is left with a yearly profit of 80 dollars. 80 dollars made from over 500 hours work? Shoemakers in Malaysia are making more than a lot of these IBOs are. The big hoax is this: all of the people who are making money with Quixtar are NOT making it from the sales of in-house products. Instead, they earn their thousands every month by duping the lower-level IBOs into buying this useless motivational crap. It's called the "tools system," and it is a wide-scale abuse of the trust that the new IBOs have placed in their up-line. I have a few quotes by some higher-ups in Quixtar that support this claim:
"Tools business is more important than Amway business" ~ Rich DeVos, co-founder of Amway and Quixtar
"Quixtar said 98% of the IBOs should not know about the tools income" ~ Andy Andrews, former Diamond IBO, fired by Quixtar for revealing the tools scam
"Amway's achievement numbers have not improved with the 'systems'" ~ Rich DeVos
"You can't give up your tools income because that means bankruptcy for you" ~ Bill Abraham, attorney for Yager Diamonds, an IBO focus group (why would they need an attorney?)
Perhaps the most incriminating of all...
"The tool and function business generates enormous profits. Simply put, the money is not in the Amway business; the money is in the hype of the Amway business." ~ Kenny Stewart, Crown IBO, and Brig Hart, Double Diamond IBO.
This shows the true nature of Quixtar. All the motivational crap they sell you is worthless, and the only function it serves is to fill the coffers of the up-line. Also check the last two websites in the list at the bottom of this post. There are many, many more incriminating quotes from members of Amway and Quixtar.

I also invite you to read the story of a woman who discovered the truth behind her hardships as a dedicated 40+ hours a week IBO with Quixtar here. In addition, I would like to give an example of how woefully useless these tools are...

A friend of mine called me up one day, wanting to offer me a "wonderful business opportunity." I promptly told him that I wanted no part of any pyramid scheme. This was before I had learned the new terminology. He quickly corrected me, saying that there are no more pyramid schemes, and that this was a legitimate business offer. I warned him explicitly that anything similar to a pyramid scheme would be a waste of his time and the 2-hour drive that he had to make it. I also suggested that he describe it to me over the phone instead. In a trained-sounding voice, he replied that for me to get the full benefit of the experience, I had to speak to him in person. I figured an hour or so out of my weekend wouldn't hurt, and I could use a job, so I agreed. I forgot to ask how he had gotten my number. Today I learned from my misguided compatriots that in the motivational tools, the IBOs are urged to make lists of hundreds and even thousands of people who could possibly be converted to the scheme. People such as second-grade classmates, babysitters, distant cousins, and even the unknown drunken cell-phone entries are fair game. Anyway, he continually pestered me with calls every day leading up to our meeting, asking me if I needed clarification of anything he had told me, the clarifications more confusing than the original problems, and constantly confirming our meeting. This is all part of the tool game plan. Eventually I told him to just leave me alone until the meeting. So the day comes, and I head out to the coffee shop where we were to meet. I go a half-hour early to grab a mocha before he got there, and I saw him in the window, apparently practicing a presentation with note cards to an empty booth. He saw me and smiled sheepishly, putting away the papers and pulling out a bunch of generic-looking food items. I walked in and sat down across from him. He opens a half-empty bottle of a sports-drink labeled "XS," takes a swallow, grimaces (at the taste?), and caps it. He then pulls the note cards back out. I have to admit, the people who script these "interviews" are psychological geniuses. Several of the note cards (almost a hundred of them wired in a notebook fashion) addressed my skeptic remarks right after I uttered them. The note cards themselves annoyed me. They had a transparently condescending air, treating me like an ADHD kid flash-reading for a multiplications-table test by using flashy diagrams of nothing and bar graphs with no numbers and enigmatic labels like "IBO min effort." Most of the presentation itself was a blur, mostly hyperbole about how you get exponentially richer (think a pyramid) the more you get people to sign up. They refute the pyramid right after (defensively) by drawing a web diagram, as if that makes it all better. There were also laughable attempts to make the presentation a personal one. Think Bill Engvall's joke about buying a spa he didn't want because the salesman coaxed his name out of him. This kid asked, "Now, if you could go to one place, where would it be?" I was startled by this question, thinking, "What does this have to do with anything?" I must have said something to this effect because he, too, was startled. This answer didn't fit his scheme and he became flustered, eventually stammering out "c-c-come on... just name a place." I called his bluff. "I don't want to," I replied. He pressed me over and over and refused to continue the presentation. Finally I said, "Fine, I want to go to the Bahamas." He brightened and straightened in his seat, back on track just as his superiors had instructed. "Well, how would you like to go to the Bahamas and still be making money at home with no effort?" I said, "I guess that would be nice." He replied "Yep," and then continued on with the presentation, absolutely no segue into that idea or out. I laughed at the other paltry attempts at involving my personal life, and when he asked for some friends' names, I just made stuff up and tried not to think of anyone in particular. It made the next exercise even more fruitless, as I offered my newfound imaginary friends discount sports drinks and the promise of free money. I told him that I was not interested, and he replied "Ok, it is your choice, and I will not pressure you any further." He then tried to pressure me further. I got up from the table, wished him luck, and barely made it out the door before I burst into cynical laughter.
UPDATE: My friend, who I mentioned above, is officially out of Quixtar. He lost thousands of dollars, forcing him to transfer from a private school to a cheaper public school. I recently had him over for a party and he had some interesting things to say.
"I couldn't stand being in that group anymore... everyone was being so fake."
"When I told my upline I wanted to leave, he told me that this was my big chance to spread the word of God."
He told me that he realized he had been brainwashed, and that the plan and the methods were useless. He also took no offense when he read this because he realized how foolish the endeavor had been. There's a true success story from Quixtar.

Back to today: I relayed my doubts about the program my friends had been duped into, trying desperately to fact-find in their speech. Every question I asked prompted a pre-programmed answer that answered nothing at all. Finally I cut them off and tried to ask them about the corporation's, as well as the higher IBO's, profit margin, if everyone was promised a large cut of the sales. I managed to coax an admission from them that they didn't buy a thing from Quixtar. Because the profits are based on how much is sold by you and those below you, I inquired as to how they planned on making the expected 2000+ dollars profit every month. After an awkward silence, the two friends launched into a (seemingly practiced) tandem volley of praise for the program, and of people they know who are "retiring in 10 years." One friend also countered my criticism of the "easy money" mentality by describing how her father was locked into manual labor with no retirement plan, that her motivation was to help him live out the rest of his life comfortably. This is a wholly admirable mentality, but the crooks at Amway will prey upon this, building up one's hopes and dreams before dashing them to nothing, stealing all the "optional" investments the poor down-line put into the scam. If I had researched this earlier, I would have asked them how much motivational stuff they had been sold by these people. They claimed the motivational tools helped, and were necessary purchases for the burgeoning IBO. Quixtar, after just 3 weeks, had already brainwashed two more followers. Ultimately, the two friends refused to believe that their win-win situation was a scam. I can only hope that their lives aren't ruined like so many others were before.

If you are involved in this company, please take my advice: do NOT buy the motivational tools, do NOT invest ANY money other than your membership fee, do NOT attend any functions that you must travel a long distance for, and do NOT buy tickets to conventions or parties. And be sure to check your morals at the door: the only way you can make any kind of salary (read:: more than 2,000 a year) is to dupe your down-line into investing in your own tools system. There's no easy money in Amway, just years of frustration with an eventual position, unethical and unrewarding, as a propaganda marketer and swindler.
---http://www.merchantsofdeception.com/ (a book site from a former Quixtar corporate-type who blew the whistle on the deceptions of the tools system)
---http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4375477/ (a reporter infiltrated a Quixtar convention, interviewed several who were ruined by pursuing a career as an IBO, and cornered a higher-up about his incriminating admissions)
---http://www.amquix.info/dateline/dateline.html (quotes of higher-ups in Quixtar and Amway)
---http://www.mlmsurvivor.com/ (information on all types of multi-level marketing schemes as well as links to other fact-based sites and truth-hunters)
---http://www.amquix.info/shs_v_alticor.html (the lawsuit against Amway by two former top sellers)
---http://www.thisbiznow.com/quixtar/ibo_statistics.html (Quixtar facts on IBO earnings)

I also encourage you to read this overview of MLM law: http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/Primer.htm
You can see here, using their tests, that Quixtar very nearly falls under the category of a pyramid scheme. And if you include the fact that the tools are the main source of income, it then shoves Quixtar into the realm of illegality. Also, if the third prong of the Howie test is considered, if your up-line is helping you recruit, then that up-line is in violation of an anti-pyramid provision. They try to get around this with motivational tools which, as you read above, are useless. I invite IBOs to let me know their net profit from this business, as well as how much time, money, and effort they've put into this operation. All I know is I've seen too little success and too much heartache to condone this company's actions.

Now that your eyes or open (or fused completely shut, depending on your reaction), I will take the positive support and knowledge that I've gleaned from Quixtar IBOs and give you a rough idea of how to succeed in the business. It does not mean part-time work, it does not mean "set it and forget it" downline abuse, and it means being both ethical and wary. You can read it here.

Josh

Bush's (not so) Disappointing Nominee

2005-07-28T20:47:00.000-04:00

Washington was in a fervor in the first weeks of July with rumors spreading of a looming vacancy in the Supreme Court. Thus, when Sandra Day O'Connor retired, the pundits and politicians all were ready for her replacement. Ann Coulter, in fact, almost immediately penned a column attacking O’Connor’s many decisions during her career as a Supreme Court Justice. In it, she responds to Chuck Schumer's request for a justice similar to O'Connor in judicial philosophy. Coulter suggests that the ideal nominee is one who is "violently opposed by Chuck Schumer." She went on to predict a large shift to the right with Bush's next nominee. Well, the replacement has been named, John G. Roberts, Jr., and Ann Coulter couldn't be more displeased. This intrigues me, because I believe that the perfect nominee is one who is violently opposed by Ann Coulter.

It has always been my belief that to understand the truth behind any amendment, law, or appointment, the most honest criticism will come from the detractors in the party, ideology, etc. from where it originates. Now, bowing to the pressure of special interest groups and the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), the congressional Democrats will surely make noise over Roberts. Liberal papers will smear his career, trying (unsuccessfully) to Bork him. However, the conservative side of the government has fallen strangely silent in praise and, aside from the administration's constant assurances that he is a worthy candidate, there is little support other than praise for his intelligence or clean record. There is a sense of discontentment in the right wing of politics, demonstrated more by the perpetual silence than any vocal protest. The one exception is, of course, Coulter, who likens the situation to George H.W. Bush's appointment of David Souter.

Coulter brings up a valid point: Roberts has lasted his entire career without saying a single controversial word. He has neglected to mention his personal philosophy in any of his writings, making a vocal point that any opinions he authored or co-authored did not necessarily represent his own views. He added a footnote on a 1994 law review which reinforced that his time spent representing the United States (during Bush Sr.'s presidency) as a Deputy Solicitor General was in no way a showcase of his own beliefs. The fact that he tried so often to drive this home was warning enough to many conservatives who were hoping for a nominee who would perhaps legislate from the bench, though in favor of conservative, rather than liberal, philosophy. Coulter mostly took offense to Bush’s choice of a "risky" nominee, even though his party was securely in power and the opposition had failed to capitalize after the arguably disastrous beginning to his second term. Roberts is not risky because he chances a filibuster from Democrats; Roberts is a "blank slate," untouchable by a litmus test and an enigma to the ideological scrutiny both sides will attempt. He is a man that Geoffrey Stone of The Huffington Post referred to as “Bush’s blink.” Though he may share the very conservative philosophy of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, he also demonstrates an extreme reluctance to apply any personal belief in his rulings.

Roberts’s credentials are undeniable: his intelligence and knowledge of government, consistency in the application of law, judicial restraint, and professional demeanor are all top-shelf. For over 20 years, Roberts has exemplified an honest politician, one who ignores partisan hackery while owing judicial obedience to the documents that govern his country. Terry Eastland of The Weekly Standard notes that one case in particular, a decision that had many liberals and human rights activists shouting in anger, is a characteristic example of his judicial restraint. In the case, a 12 year old girl was thrown to the ground, handcuffed, searched, and jailed for eating french fries in a metrorail station that had banned food. Roberts takes a logical stance, saying that it matters "not whether these policies were a bad idea but whether they violated" the girl’s constitutional rights. Speaking for a unanimous panel, he sides with the police, citing that, although the Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures, the girl did break a law, thus subjecting herself to all consequences including jail-time and a search of her nearby posessions. Maggie Gallagher also presents a “close-up look” at his judicial reason in a case where he dissented from two other judges, again on Fourth Amendment interpretation. In this case, a man was pulled over in a car with stolen license plates and was unable to produce a driver’s license or proof of ownership of the car. After arresting the man for driving an unregistered car with a suspended license and stolen tags, one of the officers proceeded to search for the real tags in the car (based on his experience with stolen tags in the past). What he found instead was a .25-caliber pistol and ammunition in the trunk. After being convicted for a weapons violation, the man appealed on the grounds that the vehicle was unreasonably searched, that his Fourth Amendment rights to the vehicle had been violated. Roberts opined to uphold the sentence, saying that because the officers had probable cause, they did not need a warrant to investigate further and search for evidence. It’s difficult not to agree with Gallagher (and Roberts, of course): a man with three legal reasons not to be behind the wheel of a car he is caught driving should not have protection against a search of that vehicle, as it is the duty of an officer to investigate a crime at the scene.

At his initial confirmation hearing, Roberts was asked by Schumer to explain why he would not reveal his personal opinions on past rulings. Roberts replied that to judge a case before sitting on the bench would undermine both his credibility and the strategy of the litigants who bring the case in future sessions. To do so would cause a bias in the arguments, causing those presenting a case to either attack a justice's personal opinions or attempt to play off them. Further inquiries have revealed his steadfastness and dedication to the ideals he has pushed for over 20 years. He refuses to bargain for votes, again demonstrated by his refusal to reveal any of his beliefs or even a single thought on an upcoming case. The only real admission in the past decade has been his view that Roe vs. Wade is time-tested as "law of the land," and that it would take significant evidence to make him overturn the landmark decision. His allegiance to well-established precedence demonstrates that he will not resort to conservative activism, an inclination to disregard or overturn precedent due to personal belief or political pressure.

It is the belief of this particular writer that Roberts is the perfect candidate for the Supreme Court, a man who refuses to bow even the slightest to the partisan hackery that both sides wish to foist upon him. He appears solidly moderate, as in he is motivated by neither the left nor right agendas, with a clearer vision of the Supreme Court's purpose than O'Connor and an utterly unsympathetic ear for the conservatives who wish to control him. The question is not about his beliefs, for it is almost certain that his beliefs are solidly conservative. The only necessary question has already been answered: whether or not he will be a fair and restrained justice. I hope he receives a clean and smooth appointment, and that the Democrats and Republicans save their energies for other issues that are actually controversial.
---Souter In Roberts' Clothing by Ann Coulter
---Reading Roberts's Mind by Terry Eastland
---The Volokh Conspiracy (various contributors)
---JUDGING JUDGE ROBERTS by Maggie Gallagher
---John Roberts: Bush's Blink by Geoffrey R. Stone

(final draft)

My Life As A "Libtard Idiot"

2005-07-26T15:31:00.000-04:00

It was not too long ago that I was browsing an opinion article written in the Huffington Post, a piece that congratulated Tom Cruise for calling out Matt Lauer on his glibness (I personally would not know how shallow Lauer is) and for bringing attention to a national dysfunction at the hands of psychiatric drugs and treatments. Because I wonder what my peers think about this situation, I visited the discussion board for the article and read the responses. The only messages were several posts decrying Cruise (and the doctor who wrote the article thanking him) as an ignorant hack, saying his assault on psychology was unfounded and based on information spoon-fed from the Scientologist propaganda machine. I felt it necessary to defend Cruise, if only because the posters opted to wholly ignore Cruise's position and instead proclaim psychiatry as a fool-proof science. Such a misguided notion needs to be addressed, and I reminded them first that his attack was not on psychology, a much less controversial science, second that numerous psychiatric drugs have been recalled both by their parent companies and the FDA, and third that Cruise has taken an enormous interest in the topic and is apparently very well read. His arguments are concise and based on fact. The initial response from several users was "Show me your Ph.D. and I'll listen to you." This was also their response to Cruise's assertions, that his lack of higher education negated any logical argument he could present. I considered my options for response: (1) inform them that they have no Ph.D. either, and calling Cruise a hack is just as ignorant on their part, (2) Point out each and every one of my sources, written by much more credible sources who are educated in mental health or (3) flame them. I refrained from posting alltogether. My reasoning? Their response demonstrated that they considered me an unintelligent hack, and anything I told them would be disregarded as trash. It's a sad day when someone refuses to accept a logical argument unless it is spoon-fed to them by a so-called "expert," especially when so many of these scientists are proven wrong on a daily basis. Remember when margarine was better for you than butter? Or when bottled water was supposed to be the cure-all of drinking water problems? Or how about the healthy lifestyle from low-carb diets? If you demand and expect empirical, uncontested, unbiased data from an unstable and relatively new science, you are unreasonable.Before I could even respond, the same posters attacked my sources, basically saying "I've never heard of it, so it can't be true." I considered asking them how reliable the FDA's recall records were, but I didn't want to risk being flamed. I could have mentioned how my parents put me on ritalin until I grew old enough to know better, and how as soon as I stopped taking it I crashed into depression, something I had never experienced before. Or how I fight bouts of depression every year because the medicine permanently affected my brain (research it if you don't believe me). I could have also told them of people in my communities who have killed themselves while on anti-depressants. I could have told them that my sometimes extreme depression is fixed easily by a week of athletic activity and healthy eating, and how seeing a psychiatrist just pissed me off and made me feel helpless. I could tell them about the herbal remedies my mother takes, and how they work better than any foreign substance she ever introduced into her body. And I could tell them that between a man who is passionate about a subject and a man who is ordered to interview him and counter him about it, I'll believe the passionate one any day. But I didn't say any of this because of my experience as a "libtard idiot."

My first attempt at reasonable discourse with the red side of the country began on the discussion board for Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. I loaded up the board and was immediately hit with all-caps titles like "FUCKING LIBTARDS CRY" and "DIE NAZI BITCH" and other most unpleasant topics. Undeterred, I searched for a thread started by someone with a shred of dignity. After a fruitless search I tried again, this time for someone who used lower-case letters and wasn't trolling. Well, there was one I saw that had been untouched so far: "Liberals, answer just one question for me." I clicked, and the question seemed to be a legitimate request. The author asked us (liberals) to explain why we condoned abortion. So I replied, naively, saying that to me at least, a fetus that early in development bore no resemblance to a human, and that although it was potential life, so was a sperm and an unfertilized egg, and because I had no problem with preventing fertilization, I saw no outstanding evidence that a fetus was any more valuable. This is of course why I fully support stem cell research from embryos. Anyway, I posted my response and waited for theirs. Immediately it came. The man hurls the most vicious insults at me, calling me a nazi bastard, kin to slaveowners, and thoroughly immoral and idiotic example of a worthless human being. Future replies to my answer all referred to me, in some form or another, as a "fucking libtard idiot." These words were filled with emotion, and I know the man was angry at me, and all I had done was what he had asked. The man went on to explain that if I saw 3 month old baby ripped from its mother's womb, screaming and wiggling its arms in anguish, I would immediately renounce my sins and admit that abortion is a monstrous infection in society. I politely informed him that a baby has only minor feeling in its face and genitalia by the 3rd month, and is in fact unable to sense any real pain until well into the second trimester, finally having the ability to recognize pain as humans do during the 32nd week (end of 8th month). The baby doesn't have a bit of control over its body until week 16 (4th-5th month), at which point it can flex its developing body. The developing fetus begins to resemble a human during the third month, before which it looks mostly like a tadpole. Even in the early stages as a fetus, there is small resemblance to the human body. Only 1% of abortions take place after the 20th week, when a fetus would have the opportunity to barely wriggle its arms. It hasn't even developed the ability to use its voicebox yet (that doesn't come until the 6th month, upon which the baby is able to breathe air). So for over 95% of abortions, the doctor is removing a small, inch-long tadpole with rudimentary arms and legs and no developed neck or throat. I was drowned out by threats and more violent hate-filled insults. By the way, if you doubt my claims, read the Discovery.com handbook on pregnancy below. My abortion data comes from a pro-life site, though they left a blank between week 13 and week 20. I extrapolated conservatively (in favor of higher weeks) for my numbers.

My further attempts to bridge even significantly less controversial issues, such as the 10 Commandments display and even censorship, have led to my receiving a string of hate. How one can get so angry over a video game is beyond me. If you recommend that parents regulate what their children are playing, the NeoCons, as the trollers like to call themselves, will call you an immoral bastard. If you suggest that the video games aren't as bad as the media makes them out to be, the NeoCons will call you an immoral bastard. And if you remind them that a Democrat is co-sponsoring the bill with a Republican, well, that's when they fall back on "libtard" and company. The moral of the story is debate is useless with anyone with blind faith, whether it be in religion, in one's country, or in the president. No topic can be reasonably approached with these people. So I'll take "fucking libtard idiot" as a compliment, because it signifies that I refuse to blindly believe without questioning what I am told.
---Discovery.com's Pregnancy Factbook

---ReligiousTolerance.org's abortion data

Democrats' Folly and Dicing Religion with Ann Coulter

2005-07-19T23:25:00.000-04:00

As promised, here are the topics I had almost addressed earlier:

I've lost my faith in the national Democratic party. It seems they've taken a liking to the "second mouse gets the cheese" style of politicking. Aside from a few bi-partisan initiatives, the vast majority of Democratic activities has been naysaying everything the Republicans try, and little has actually been offered in return. They seem to have resorted wholly to Bush bashing as a platform, something that all but the most diehard and unreasonable left-wing devotees are sick of hearing. Now I agree with the Bolton filibustering, and I'll get to the reason of that standoff later (next time). First, I have 3 specific Democrats who I have a serious gripe with:
1) Hillary Clinton - when initially I read of her speculation on running, I was all for it. Clinton in the White House?!? Unfortunately, she has spent all her time building herself up for the election already. I read a lengthy article detailing her rise to the Senate in Vanity Fair and I must say that she seems to be a rather obtuse woman, especially with the things she has been saying. About Bush for instance, calling him on multiple occasions Alfred E. Neuman (the freckled face of Mad Magazine), she says hateful and wholly non-productive things, the lowest of partisan hackery.
2) John Kerry - I don't think he realizes that the election is over. He has been harping Bush constantly ever since he gained the spotlight and contributes absolutely nothing worthwhile to the media stream.
3) Harry Reid - The mouthpiece for everything irrelevant and unintriguing, he uses his leadership position to represent all of the left-wing Americans with... beating a dead horse. Every stumble, every mistake of the Republican government is repeated several MILLION times by every democrat under his wing, saving the loudest burst for their mother hen.

So the problem is the Democrats are not taking a stance. Instead, they're trying to catch their majority brethren in a mistake, hence why the Rove story has been attacked and blown up. Here's a thought: Senators are legislators. They aren't press secretaries, they aren't pundits, and they aren't political analysts. So why are they spending the majority of their public efforts analyzing and critiquing the administration? The answer: they're desperate. They need to change up their game plan. This is obviously a ploy for seats in 2006, and if they had just let the Republican party screw themselves over and focused instead on their own non-partisan agenda, the mess would have sorted itself out. Now, however, congressional approval is at 28%, no doubt as much because of Democratic inactivity as Republican mistakes. I don't see much gain at all for Democrats, and some of them may even lose their seats.
Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard has a good analysis of the turn the party has taken:
"The last six months have been a horrow show for Republicans. And yet, astonishingly, the Democratic party has suffered more in the polls than the Republicans. According to a recent poll done boy Democrats Stanley Greenberg and James Carville, 43 percent of Americans have warm feelings for the Republican party compared to 38 percent who feel the same way for Democrats. Greenberg characterizes his poll's results this way: 'Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more.' Greenberg says the Democrats' fall is due to voters feeling that the party has 'no core set of convictions or point of view.'

"Why is that? The Democratic party has decided to imitate the style of the political blogs, even though the most trafficked one, the Daily Kos, receives fewer than 600,000 visits a day.

...

As Markos Moulitsas observed, his virtual community (The Daily Kos) is a 'different world.' Democrats seem to have forgotten that elections are held in the real one."

And that, in a nutshell, is why I have lost faith in both the Democratic party and politics in general. Any time your leaders begin to buy into the same style of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, with "bare-knuckled, obscentity-laced politics," is a time for worry.

My final thought: If McCain runs, and Warner (or a Democratic candidate other than Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and their type) doesn't get nominated, I'm voting (shock, gasp) Republican. I'm not confined to party lines, and I WILL vote for the best man. A reasonable, proven, moderate conservative is better than an extreme left with no sense of direction. I'm liberal, but I won't put my political fate in the hands of an incompetent. Or an incompetent party, for that matter.
--- Blogging Alone
--- Sen. Clinton Attacks Bush Over Tax Cuts

Time for the Religion corner... please try not to be offended.
Ann Coulter writes an article (two of them, actually), one about the various government-subsidized expressions of speech that she deems more offensive than religion. The other was her take on "Reagan's biggest mistake," Sandra Day O'Connor, and her meddling in the affairs of the Christian.
First off, the problem I have with Coulter is that she is intelligent, but she allows partisan shots and crude insults to undermine her points. Just when she begins building a case for something, she takes a cheap shot at abortion or atheism or something else she deems savage, leaving her column as just something for other hacks of her ilk to read and applaud. Now that that's out of the way...
Exhibit A: The case...
"(1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion -- meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion."
Exhibit B: The breakdown...
"That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to sbusidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!"
First of all, her case is valid. Congress is not allowed to make a law addressing religion directly. However, her support is faulty. This country was founded BY religious people, men I should say, who believed in a compact with God, but they made expressedly clear that religion was to play no part in the creation of our government. Now, if Thomas Jefferson walked into a Kentucky courthouse and saw a 10 Commandments display on the wall, would he think our government abstained from religious endeavors? This is why O'Connor ruled against it. My idea for balancing it out is to put the 10 Commandments on one wall and on the wall across from it place a huge plaque that says "There is no God." If one is ok, the other should beas well, right? Secondly, and the basis for my idea comes from another author Cynthia Tucker, the argument should bypass the Establishment Clause and go straight to the heart of basic citizen rights: Those who do not hold the 10 Commandments as a valid historical document; agnostics; atheists; and religions other than Christianity, Judaism, and (to an extent), Islam; are oppressed by the presence of such a religious document in a supposedly non-religious environment. Here is Tucker's example:
"Iraq, after all, has a tiny minority of Christians, men and women who still suffer oppression, even after the fall of Saddam Hussein. They dream of the day when they will be free to worship as they please, without fear of intimidation. Would they feel equal under law if every courthouse in the new Iraq housed huge monuments of popular verses of the Quran? Would they believe they could stand before a Sunni or Shiite judge and get fairness if the wall behind him posted a declaration from the Islamic holy book?"
Of course not. We atheists feel the same way, that Christian judges and politicians are forcing their religion into the decision process. This has nothing to do with establishment, and everything to do with equality.
--- Reagan's Biggest Mistake Finally Retires
--- Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion
--- The Principles We Push Abroad Should Be Upheld Here at Home

It's getting late, so I'll finish up tomorrow:
coming soon: behind the scenes with Bush the Messiah, the issues students face today, stem cell jabs, feints, and knockouts, some other random musings, and (eventually) my experience as a "Fucking Libtard Idiot" (this one burns me up). Also, Jon Stewart's dream come true.

Doonesbury on Bush and Iraq

Also, check out the Doonesbury series on suicide bombers, here from Tuesday until Saturday. They're hilarious AND ring true, though against the Bush administration's claims.

Catch Up

2005-07-18T20:37:00.000-04:00

Because I missed 2 weeks, I'm just going to sort through my approximately 300 pages of news articles and pick out about 40-50 pages worth to comment on. My apologies for taking so long to get back into this. Unfortunately, after reading and sorting my articles, I'm out of time to write tonight. Tomorrow I will attempt to finish (with the addition of more articles, no doubt).

Coming soon: Democracy's, Democrats' Respective Falls from Grace
Also playing soon in a blog near you: My Experience as a "Fucking Libtard Idiot"

Suspended Posting

2005-07-12T20:32:00.000-04:00

I'm not much in the writing mood at the moment, my mono resurfaced and some personal problems are occupying my time and mind. I'll return shortly. Don't worry, I'm saving it all up for post when the time is right.

World Powers, Gay Marriage, and Iraq: The Sequel

2005-06-30T23:00:00.000-04:00

The past two days have been massive coverage of Iraq. Most news groups and op/ed pieces are still focused on Iraq, and maybe 90% of these pieces are rehashes from people jumping on the "I hate Bush and Iraq" bandwagon. So I'll touch briefly on some of the more novel subjects I read.

The political analysts and experts(the actual ones, not greasy pundits) have released their judgment of Bush's speech. They more or less agree it was transparently patronizing and trying to play off of patriotic and fearful sentiments. Terrorism expert David Rothkopf, as reported by the AFP, referred to it as "unvarnished demagoguery." Cutting through the polysyllabic vocabulary, he basically calls Bush out on shamelessly playing off the public's emotions, which I agree with completely. The strategy isn't working anymore; people have become jaded to and even offended by references to 9/11, and Bush needs to find another avenue for support. Of course, major Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi were the first to criticize Bush for implying this connection (note: He never came out and stated there was a connection, leaving breathing room for interpretation or a CYA (cover your ass) retreat), and the moderate-to-liberal media were quick to quote them as well as assert this on their own.
More Democrats and Republicans are questioning Bush on his decision not to send more troops to secure the borders and quell the resistance. John McCain in particular was quick to point out that more troops from the beginning would have made a large difference in the outcome of the war. Kerry and Reid, among other Congressmen, have said that when they spoke to all ranks of enlisted men and officers, the main complaint was that they didn't have enough personnel to accomplish their tasks. Perhaps Bush needs to begin listening to the generals who are actually in combat instead of the ones sitting on his advisory board. The main problem here, though, isn't Bush's concern that it would send the wrong message, as he expounded in his speech; the reason we cannot send more troops is that we are already stretched too thin. Enlistment rates are dropping. We don't have near enough soldiers in the field as we should, and recruiters have three choices:
1) Target kids 16-18 and try to manipulate them into joining the army. This has been attempted, and actually, as a hidden part of the No Child Left Behind act (the worst thing ever... all the best teachers at my school left after that act was enacted and enforced), the government is allowed to collect information about high schoolers (grades, race, studies, basically anything the school knows), and parents, though you can tell the school not to send the information to the government, they still will sell it to a private company, who then sells it to the government. Basically there is NOTHING you can do to prevent this. Anyways, they've been doing this for 3 years now, and it's not effective. That's where option 2, the actual decent option, comes in.
2) Repeal the arbitrary restrictions in place that discriminate against groups. Allow the women on the front lines. They are looking to join the army, and the less desirable position there is stuck as a base medic or on KP. They joined to serve their country in battle, not serve their male counterparts their rations. Also, that DADT policy needs to go. Some 10,000 servicemen have been kicked out of the military because their sexual orientation was discovered. That's at least 6% of what's in Iraq now, enough to cover a large stretch of the already porous border. The insurgents are joining foreign nationals, and the number one way to end their attacks is to never let them into the country. Also, allow the non-citizens to fight. Many immigrants have difficulty finding jobs in our dribbling economy, and enlistment offers a large bonus in addition to a better case for citizenship. If they defend our country, they are practically guaranteed our rights as well.
3) Offer a better enlistment incentive. If you increase the pay and enlistment bonus (a proposal is underway right now to raise the top enlistment bonus to $40,000), more kids just out of high school or dropped out will choose the army as a beginning to their career. You might also attract the kids who can get into college but can't afford it. With financial aid as unreliable it is, there are many kids just sitting at home with part-time jobs waiting desperately for their chance at higher education. Of course, offering more pay would require a tax raise. But really, when's the last time out country went to war while simultaneously lowering taxes? War and taxes go hand in hand for a stable economy...
--- Bush's Iraq-terrorism link faces skeptical US public
--- Democrats: Bush wrong on troops, 9/11
--- US Invades Kids' Privacy
--- If Uncle Sam Wants You He Has to Be Able to Find You

Ok, so I focused on Iraq more than I said I would... so sue me. Let's go to the world for a bit:

I read possibly the most intelligent assessment of foreign aid I have ever had the pleasure of clicking. I don't want to dilute it, so please, if you have time, click the link below and read it for yourself. It's critical of the Live 8, but it just makes so much sense to me.
--- A Way to Feed the World

Regarding the G8: Blair wants to address global warming as a main topic, especially the Kyoto Potocol. Bush, however, still rejects the motion, saying that the protocol will destroy jobs in the US. Honestly, we've already spread so many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that global warming is unavoidable. The gases will take hundreds of years to react and recombine into something less harmful to the earth, and by that point temperature change will already take effect. That and, although the US produces about 24% of the world's greenhouse gases, a large amount of the future gas will be produced by developing countries such as India and China, countries that will not abide by any limits the G8 sets. Bush's alternate proposal, unfortunately, was terribly misguided. Congress has passed essentially the largest setback in environmental policy we could ever imagine. Expanding coal mining in the US? Drilling in the Alaskan Ecological Reserve? Take a hint from Europe, Bush. France is dotted with nuclear power plants. How many disasters have you heard of there? Scotland just approved a 209-turbine wind power farm. That alone is an enormous amount of energy that has little drawback. Think of all that open space on the plains in the midwest... oh, and Cheney? If you want the public to trust your energy advisors, give us the names of who they are... otherwise we'll just assume they're some oil industry goons.
--- Bush faces tough time at G8 over global warming

Also regarding the US popularity in the world, an analysis by Ted Rall of a recent Pew Research study from around the world, 15,000 citizens in 15 countries. Our popularity is at an all-time low, and many nations view us similarly to the way we viewed Germany in World War 2. We have become, as Rall puts it, "the biggest danger to peace and stability on the planet." For evidence, I point you no further than the situation in Iraq. Before we invaded, the only violent threat in Iraq was Saddam's standing army. We invade, depose Saddam from his throne, and not even a year later members of all the surrounding countries are joining the insurgents and terrorists and pouring into Iraq. Many countries that were indifferent to us in the Middle East are now criticizing our efforts, taking backward steps in their progressively democratic campaigns in spite of (or perhaps because of) our attempts to bring peace to the region. We have been assisting Israel for decades now. Where is that conflict headed? The leaders are playing GOTCHA! with us, holding peace talks by day and then attacking each other by night. You would think that in the effort to bring peace, Bush and company would try to be diplomatic to the surrounding nations. Sadly, Condoleeza Rice has embarked on a crusade (what? Bush said it first...) against all of the Islamic-ruled governments, criticizing their rule and their policies. Bush is all but directly threatening Iran with invasion, even though Iran hasn't really done anything except elect the "wrong" guy. He's already bullied up on Afghanistan, a country with little chance to defend itself, and he's eyeballing Syria for future campaigns. Right now, the world trusts Germany, Italy, and Japan more than it trusts us, and no more than 60 years ago we saved the world from that "Axis of Evil." Anyways, I've butchered his story enough. Read up here:
--- AHEAD: SIX DECADES OF HUMILIATION

Ah, lets see... gay marriage. Spain and Canada have passed it, the Netherlands and Belgium did awhile back... do you remember when the world looked to the US for progressive reform? Now we're hung up on faith-based morality mixing with our secular government while Spain, a heavily Roman Catholic country, allows gay marriage without a hang-up. 60% of citizens polled there said they fully support it, while 32% dissented. Now compare those numbers with here: 89% of the population believes that gays deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. 60% of the country also supports either gay marriage or same-sex partnerships. This poll was taken when Bush was elected. Now, I realize that several states have passed same-sex marriage bans, but this was due to more trickery than pure homophobia. The gay marriage aspect was only a small portion of the referendum in each state. Most of the issue was marriage security, or the fear that the government would strip away benefits from married couples, playing off the economic considerations of the lower class that would normally support Democratic endeavors. You can read the story for exact numbers and such, but people are getting married later, divorcing more, and forming nonconjugal unions for economic benefit, stretching the safety net of government aid until it will snap. By defining a narrow aspect of marriage as a man and a woman, reducing benefits for domestic partnerships, and forcing businesses to cater only to those clearly defined relationships, the government is saving money and extending benefits for legal unions. The main way to gain support for gay marriage is not to appeal to the moral side, as the Democrats have wrongfully attempted, but to reassure the public that it would not negatively affect such areas as social security (a major point, as a giant safe dangles precariously over that issue already), workers' benefits, and insurance costs. This story is a lengthy one, but it's a good read, and honestly, the Democratic party has wasted time and effort squaring off against the Republican party on moral issues. Grey areas like stem cell research are worth discussing, but to put this issue narrowly on gay rights is like running into a door. You have to open it first, preferably as wide as possible.
--- Beyond Gay Marriage
--- Spain OKs Gay Marriage, Defying Opponents

The GOP is backing what they call non-destructive stem cell research, which basically means trying to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying them. This will yield approximately one good stem cell per embryo... honestly, I don't know what their reasoning is. If you had 100,000 cans of tuna, perfectly good but with nowhere to sell them, do you just throw them away? No, you GIVE them to someone who needs them, say the homeless, or the oft-referred to starving kids in Africa... so if we have 100,000 embryos that are going to be destroyed because they're unusable, why not give them to stem cell research? I know conservatives and such will leap down my throat for comparing "POTENTIAL HUMAN LIFE!!!" to a can of Chicken of the Sea, but seriously, don't be preachy. Just give us one good reason why we should throw them away instead of making use of them. Two-thirds of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. You have a mandate, Mr. President. Listen to the public and stop worrying about your "ethical boundries." Dare I bring up Iraq again?
---GOP Backs Non-Destructive Cell Research

And of course, I'm finally going to comment on the whole reporters refusing to testify and reveal their sources. What I find interesting is, they reported on the fact that Valerie Plame's name was leaked by the administration directly after Plame's husband countered Bush's State of the Union justification for the war, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. Plame's name was already revealed in an earlier column by a very conservative writer named Robert Novak, who claimed his sources were senior officials in Bush's administration. The situation seems even more dubious now that the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency discovered that the documents Bush based his assertion on were fakes.
--- Two US reporters again refuse to testify, face jail in CIA leak case

My final thought: Bush telling Iran that they're not allowed to have uranium, even for peaceful energy endeavors, makes me wish I could draw a political cartoon. Bush's head, in a caricature atop a child's body, selfishly hugging a box of candy. A dozen kids, with N. Korea, Iran, and other countries' names on the backs of their shirts, are jumping around him saying "Lemme have some!" Bush says, "No! You'll get cavities!" as he shovels them into his mouth.

This is my last entry until Monday, July 11th. I have a beach/Blacksburg trip.

Until then,

The Flaming Liberal Atheist Tree-Hugging Hippie Douche.

Reaction: Bush, Iraq, the Economy, and the death of Democrats

2005-06-29T18:14:00.000-04:00

Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread?

This is possibly the first truly non-partisan analysis of the current situation in Iraq. It offers no religious or political reasoning, nor does it decide that either side was wrong in the debate. It raises interesting points and, though I personally do not agree with the conclusion the author reaches, I wholeheartedly recommend it to any disillusioned person who is tired of the short noise bursts from partisan hacks *ahem* Ann Coulter *cough* and wants to simply be informed.

Notable quote: "when American presidents speak of liberty as God's plan for mankind, even God-fearing Canadians wonder when God began disclosing his plan to presidents."
Notable quote 2: "If democracy plants itself in Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East, Bush will be remembered as a plain-speaking visionary. If Iraq fails, it will be his Vietnam, and nothing else will matter much about his time in office."

And now to the news:

I realize my past few posts have defined what I think about Bush. However, they give the wrong impression. Let me address this:

I do not think Bush is an inherently bad man. I think he has misguided Christian ideals, has a wrong interpretation of how to use them, and is idealist to a fault. He is obstinate in his beliefs, and he has very little appreciation of the impossibility or reality of his beliefs. He is lucky that much of the country is both Christian and, if not hate-filled, then at least willing to spread violence for a greater cause. I disagree with him on most of his policies and his agenda, especially those that are faith-based, and his complete unwillingness to compromise with any of his opponents is generally infuriating. That said, I would also like to say that I fully believe his administration is corrupt. They "disassemble" (oh!!! Bush-ism for dissemble) whenever they feel something would cause them to lose favor with their dwindling fan base. Karl Rove is absolutely horrible at this. No man spins worse than him. Cheney spouts off things that are highly questionable if not completely false. And Scott McLellan seems all too eager to answer questions from the conservative reporters. Any questions that would require admittance to fault or a straight answer to something contrary to the administration's stance are answered unsatisfyingly and often-times falsely. Point of fact:

Political Cartoon: Mission Accomplished

Basically everyone in the press (except FOXNews and the more conservative papers) are blasting Bush for wasting an opportunity to be honest with the American people. In his speech Tuesday night, according to the press releases leading up to the event, Bush was supposed to reassure the nation of the success in Iraq as well as give a new take on the war. Most of the speech was, sadly, a re-hash of all the press releases and speeches from the past months, and the new topics he did address were both devious and short-sighted. He asked that the American people "stay the course," to offer support and be patient as the war winds down. Unfortunately, there are few signs of the insurgents slowing down. If nothing else, this admission that the US will stay as long as it takes, contrary to Bush's original promise that we would leave once Iraq had established a self-rule, will encourage and infuriate the insurgents even more. He likens them, as Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice have so often before, to the terrorists that attacked us September 11th. The last pillar of truth in Bush's campaign in Iraq, the link he never tried to make between the Taliban's attack on the WTC and Saddam's regime, was finally addressed. Now he is being labeled as a hypocrite, as he can be quoted late September, 2003 saying, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." There was a poll months ago, I cannot remember who organized it, but Americans were asked about the war in Iraq. Over 50% believed that Saddam Hussein had a connection with the 9/11 crisis, a sad number and misinformation that the administration has done nothing to combat. So this obvious lie has now been thrust upon us by our leader, combined with another lie; the insurgents are not religious crusaders, nor are they Saddam's supporters. They are free Iraqis who object to American presence and feel it is both invasive and dominating. By leaving Iraq, we could save bloodshed now for both our soldiers and the innocent Iraqis.
The Republican supporters in the White House and Congress aren't much help either. They criticize those who are asking for our troops to return home, saying that we don't need to send a "filtered" message of non-support to them. Basically what they say is shut up and lie so our soldiers don't lose their morale. This weak gag order is terrible, especially when they try to play off our sympathies for the soldiers overseas. I wish no harm on our soldiers, though as a liberal the conservative pundits may try to lead you to believe otherwise, but I think the best way to save them and the Iraqis is to bring them back. If you don't think this would help, read this article:

Inside the Mind of a Suicide Bomber

Within is the voluntary account of a man who has offered his life as a suicide bomber. He says that his goal is not to do harm to America, but to have freedom for his country from the oppressive American occupancy. Those who choose to ignore the Guantanamo accusations of prisoners there will probably dismiss this as well, but please consider it... he was not forced to say this, and his message has been endorsed by several insurgent leaders. They have no grudge against our country; they wish only to be left alone. I do not admire them or condone their actions, but if we leave, they have no reason left to fight. And that is what we're trying to accomplish, right?
So from this point, we have two real choices to calm the insurgency: leave completely, or send more soldiers to kill them all. Bush chooses the middle road, a misguided opinion that counters both his military advice and his constituents' call. He can only pray for a miracle, but for those of us who need something more, we're just out of luck.
--- Democrats critcize Bush Iraq speech, US press says "wasted" opportunity to be honest
--- Bush's No-News Iraq Speech
--- Bush Critics Call for More Troops in Iraq
--- The Big Lie

Political Cartoon: Condoleeza Rice
I know I've mentioned how much I cannot stand Condoleeza Rice. I call her the harpy... her message of freedom and democracy in the Mid-East is being undermined by her own agenda... she has criticized more or less every non-democratic country in the world, yet she refused to offer a stance on the lack of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Critics believe she doesn't want to attack the fundamental belief that women are inferior in Saudi Arabia, thus losing the country as an ally. But Egypt and Pakistan, the latter whom she recently dealt with to give a passport back to a high-profile rape victim turned women's rights champion, feel that her support of democratic reform and unwillingness to support gender equality are at odds, and they are letting the world know they aren't intimidated. She was quoted as saying, "It's just a line I've never wanted to cross ... The United States has to recognize that even after democratic processes have taken place, places are not going to look like the United States." This is a mixed message that she is sending out: we demand equality for only some of your citizens. By respecting the religious beliefs of the Koran, you must also understand that those beliefs may not lend themselves to a democratic atmosphere. Marrying the two in government is unthinkable. After all, if you want to override religious government in other countries, and this is a problem much of the world sees in America, then why is there a constant struggle by conservatives to infuse Christian beliefs in our own secular government?
---Rice doesn't stand up for Saudi women

Lawmakers voted to close a loophole in laws addressing college loans that allowed federal lenders to take up to 9.5% of the loans and pocket them, taking billions of dollars over the years that should have gone to students. Still, only 42 Republicans in the house voted to close it... the rest voted against the measure. One can only wonder what stake they had in it... I'm kind hoping this had nothing to do with my loss of financial aid... otherwise I'm going to have to add this to my reasons for hating the Republican party at the moment...
--- Ending the College Loan Giveaway

Quick thought: Ethanol 85 is the greatest idea to ever come out of the midwest. Now if only my car would run on it...

Congress is getting a $3100 cost of living raise next year. Cost of living where?

Bill Cosby recently struck out at lower-class black families for having their priorities in the wrong place. I'm not going to summarize or paraphrase, but I will say this: I have to drive through the "black" part of town, with the small, shitty houses and all that, and I see the parents driving around in brand new Cadillacs and the kids walking around in brand new brand name athletic clothing and 300 dollar shoes. Yet most of these kids are dropouts and gang members. Cosby may be a bit harsh, but he has a point when he says the money's not going to the right place...

So the Tobacco Industry is getting off without punishment once again. Originally the Attorney General decided that 130 billion dollars would be fair for them to repay for the marketing to children, lies about health issues, and general conspiracy for maximum profit. Then, inexplicably, the AG dropped the fines down to 14 billion. A few more complaints from the industry and now it seems the charges are going to be dismissed completely. The Justice Department is launching an inquiry as to why the charges were reduced, but chances are they'll be puppeted by interest groups just like the AG was...
--- Tobacco Industry: Drop Case

I hope that the individual investment accounts that Bush is pushing never come into place. People with lesser incomes and levels of education and seniors are the strongest opponents, aside from party-line Democrats, suggesting that they feel they will either not have the knowledge, the ability, or the capital to risk in investments in stocks and such. I for one would like to have a simple guarantee of living money in the future. The government has already been taking social security from me for years. I want that money back. And it's a good system, if only the administration could keep their grubby little hands out of my savings. Don't spend it... save it! What happened to the 5 trillion dollar budget surplus? Oh... right... you turned it into a deficit... jackasses. Hey, Bush! More than half the country still opposes your plans after shoving it down their throats. They don't want any! Sell to the next house...
Not that democrats are doing much better. They haven't yet offered a plan for how to save the economy... either that or they have, and the conservative majority is just silencing them... 47% of Americans believe the Democrats can do better, now they just have to prove it. more than 70% thinks that Bush and the Republicans in Congress haven't been clear enough about his plans, while over 80% say the same about Democrats. It's time to take a stance, fellas... this blocking of the Republican agenda is all well and good, but if you don't offer anything up, we're not going to get anywhere.

Tax cuts are bad. Tax cuts cause recessions. The only way to produce steady revenue for new government programs is to raise taxes. By all means! I'm just going to spend it on fast food or a video game... let the government put it to good use IN OUR OWN COUNTRY! Fix social security with it, raise health-care beneifts, or fix some of our infrastructure. I don't want my money to fund another terrorist hunt.
Quick facts (Paraphrased from "Let good sense trump ideology" by Mario M. Cuomo): Reagan produced the largest tax cut in history in 1981 while spending a lot more on the military. Sound familiar? The recession of 1982 was directly caused by this, economists say. After digging himself into that hole, he then raised taxes mostly on the wealthy, bringing the economy back up to it's original status. George H.W. Bush raised another $100 billion in tax increases, as did Bill Clinton. The tax increases led to the 4 best years the stock market has ever seen, 22 million new jobs, the aforementioned 5 trillion dollar surplus, a larger middle class, fewer poors, and more millionaires and billionaires.
Sounds good for everyone, right? Then Bush comes in, cuts taxes, and tells everyone to go buy stuff. The economy plummets. Sorry for all that, he needs to say, and stop cutting taxes for the wealthy. Trickle-down theory is crap. Absolute crap. They're going to hoard their money and we won't see a dime.

To end the ranting on a humorous note: I neglected to mention the Supreme Court's decision to allow condemning and posession of private property if it could serve a public function... aka new jobs and revenue for a community. They don't rule out taking the land and giving it to another private party. The case that they ruled on siezed private property and turned it over to a company creating a hotel and convention center... another example of the abuse that took place under these rules: a city official took an independent used-car lot and gave the land and building to the car dealership next door after the car dealership was unable to buy the other out. Justice? Anyways, after this ruling, concerned citizens are petitioning the town officials of Weare, New Hampshire, asking to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse and constructing a hotel there instead. They argue that it would create jobs and revenue for the small town. The code enforcement officer of Weare said "If it is their right to persue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin." They may allow it merely to spite Souter's decision to join the 4 others in support of eminent domain. I myself can't wait to visit the Lost Liberty Hotel when it's finally constructed... he'll get exactly what he deserved. Now about those other four justices...

I would like to end with a political cartoon that I at least found hilarious...
Political Cartoon: Flag-Burning

Until next time!

Playing Catch-Up

2005-06-28T21:09:00.000-04:00

Ok, consider the blog re-opened. I'm keeping all my politically-inclined thoughts in here now, since my Xanga was getting pretty crowded... or something... anyways, here are my thoughts thus far...

Executive:
First of all, the whole war in Iraq thing... more and more evidence is coming out that completely contradicts EVERYTHING we've been told thus far... we probably won't have to go to war (blew that one), Saddam must disarm or else we attack (disarm what?), he's not cooperating with the weapons inspectors (he showed them everything he had...), we have numerous allies (our only real ally doubted us from the start), it will be quick and painless (over 1700 dead as of today, and we have no signs of it being over)... etc. Even the causes of war have slowly morphed, and for some reason people kept believing him. What was it he said in a White House press release? They know that Saddam has WMDs, and the only course of action left is to attack? Look it up if you don't believe me... the archives are here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/ ...you know the dates. So we go, attack, big surprise no WMDs. Just some old weapons research plans that we most likely gave him way back in the day. Yeah, they neglect to mention that one, too. So ok, we need a reason for war. Well, we were SUPPOSED to be hunting for Osama in Afghanistan, which we kinda did, nevermind that we knew he was hiding in Pakistan at the time. You can't blame that little nugget on an FBI-CIA feud. Bush thought, hey, Saddam doesn't like us... who else doesn't like us? Oh, yeah! Al Qaeda! They MUST be linked. So we finish the war and investigate... nevermind that Saddam HATED Al Qaeda as much as we did. So yeah, they investigate... nope, no signs of them anywhere. Well shit, thinks Shrub, we're in a pickle. How can we salvage our patriotism and our good stature in the world? Of course! We were bringing the Iraqis DEMOCRACY! And everyone laughed at the little joke, and we went on ahead and started rebuilding. Now, some would say that the driving force behind our invasion was oil. If we really wanted oil, Iran or Saudi Arabia would have been better targets. But we were rubbing elbows with the Shah of Saudi Arabia and Iran was, well... maybe they misspelled it? Just kidding! But we'll probably get our chance soon. Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bush are doing their best to piss Iran off and seem to be dying for an excuse to attack. Anyways, the courageous and rational Ann Coulter puts those fears to rest with something like ARE YOU LIBERALS FUCKING RETARDED?!? Oh, yeah, we definitely invaded for oil! Look at how low oil prices are now that we own Iraq! Oh, that's right... THEY'RE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH! In response, Ms. Coulter, lets not forget that if we just all of a sudden tossed out a huge oil contract to, say, Halliburton, through our puppet... er, installed... er, subtly influenced Iraqi government days after we toppled the Saddam statue, the world would have been in an uproar. Your president may be stupid, but he's not that stupid. I don't think, anyways. And OPEC controls a great deal of the prices, not Iraq. They raised prices and lowered production in response to our obstinate threats to their rather authoritarian governments. I have no idea what Rove's strategy is in advising the administration to do this, but I'm sure he has a good reason... speaking of Rove...
Rove recently accused Democrats of playing politics for the mere sake of partisanship. I believe a great political strategist once said, "Most people I know on both sides of the aisle believe in the positions they take. Unless you have clear evidence to the contrary, commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree." You know who said that? Karl Rove did. Speaking to graduates at a college. You think maybe he's slightly hypocritical? Keep in mind Rove has obsessed with making W successful even through college. He has a huge hard-on for the Bush family and worked for 30 years to get W in office. His only goal is to make W look as successful as he can, and the man spins more than Jeff Gordon's tires to accomplish this. When asked if the president had a plan for the Iraq war, Rove quickly listed all the things that they couldn't plan for but didn't happen. He's done it so much it's almost automatic. You can trust absolutely nothing he says.

The House passing the flag-burning amendment just pisses me off. I hope the Senate doesn't pass it as well, or I'll be the first one in the streets lighting it on fire. This is purely stampeding all over first amendment rights. If a paparazzi can crash head-on into an actor's car and then sue him for assault on a member of the press, why can't I light a piece of cloth on fire? This energy bill business... the Senate passed it with massive support, which is a good sign, as the measure adds benefits to wind, hydro, and ethanol power producers and slightly decreases those to petroleum and other nonrenewable resources. However, Tom DeLay is threatening to block it in the House because they failed to include the one measure he really supported: the protection for gasoline companies from lawsuit for dumping the chemical MTBE into drinking water and poisoning hundreds of communities. Special interest anyone? If he shoots this down because of that then he truly is the worst representative in the country.

The Supreme court took one step in the right direction and two steps the wrong way with their final decisions. In the matter of Separation of Church and State: they outlawed the display in Kentucky of a framed copy of the Decalogue in a courthouse, which was very very good of them. For anyone who doesn't know this story, Roy Moore, a judge in Kentucky, ordered the display in the courtroom as bait for liberals to harp on him about separation of church and state, thus alienating them from the Christian base and allowing Republicans to gain considerable ground. The sick thing is, it actually worked, and Moore found himself as the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court. However, the ruling in favor of the display in Texas still bothers me. It may very well have been well-intentioned when it was donated, but having a phrase in bold saying "I am the LORD thy GOD" under the 10 Commandments framed by the founding documents of our country is most certainly indicative of our country being Christian-oriented. And as much as a lot of our country would like it to be, it's not. Scalia has done his part to alienate much of the country, including our founding fathers. He says that the belief in a monotheistic, personal religion accounts for 97.75% of the country and therefore is majority enough to allow the integration of religion and government. For those of you not familiar with the history of our country, most of our founding fathers were NOT Christian, but Deist. They believed in one god, but thought of him more as a clockwork god. He set the world in motion and then left it alone, making him not a personal god but a hands-off one. And the personal religion may dominate the RELIGIOUS side of society, but there are still agnostics, atheists, and non-god religions to contend with. Scalia is out of touch with the world, and if he actually did his homework we might actually have had a decent ruling on this issue. The other wrong step was ruling unanimously in favor of big record labels against P2P software. To sue a company that has no control over what passes through their software is ridiculous. Sony won the lawsuit filed against them by the movie industry when people began recording movies on their VCRs. It is the same principle. And by shutting down P2P networks, we lose our ability to share independent music. I for one do not buy CDs unless I sample a majority of a record first. The only way I can do that is by downloading music. By cutting that off, they're losing my contribution, not gaining it.

The administration really needs to leave Iran alone. We are trying to export democracy, and we have no right to do so. Keep in mind the human race survived all the way until the 1700s without democracy, and some parts of the world has never seen it. Does Bush think that the Ayatollah of Iran is just going to hand over his power to a people that has never known how to live on their own? Of course he wouldn't, it would do more harm than good to the country. I don't support his rule, but if we try to intervene we'll just cause more strife in the Mid-East. 43% of the country says that we are less safe from terrorist attacks now that we've invaded Iraq. Is that Bush's idea of protecting the country. Speaking of Iraq (again), Rove has been saying things that we need to set straight. He refers to the insurgents as both terrorists allied with Al Qaeda and jihadists who want to reinstall Saddam's regime. While they do commit acts of terror, they have nothing to do with Al Queda. One group has chosen to deal with Al Queda, but the dozens others want nothing to do with them. The main reason they do this is because they want the US out of their country. Bush says that giving a time table would play right into their hands. By skirting around the topic, they think we will be there forever, and they will continue to attack until we leave. I believe that if we leave as soon as the government is stable (though Bush said we were leaving when they had established one... so much for that), the attacks will peter out. Telling them we have no plans of leaving yet is just playing into their hands...

There is a lot more I did not get to cover, most of the editorials and blogs, actually, but from here on out I will be more diligent on what I cover. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what I've been thinking recently.

P.S. Normally I would link the editorials, news stories, and blogs I read that day here, but they're from at least a week ago, and I'm working from memory. So hit up the archives at Yahoo! News and see for yourself, if you're so interested.

Thanks for reading!