Scary Shit
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Why I Should Run This Country.
How do we balance the budget, ensure universal healthcare, and the best education system in the world? Here is my six part Matthew Witemyre fiscal policy plan.
1-Repeal all of the Bush tax cuts to Clinton era levels, and stop giving tax breaks to corporations that either outsource jobs, or move their corporate headquarters offshore.
2-Eliminate farm subsidies, and all government subsidies in general.
3-Repeal the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
4-trim the fat from the pentagon budget by eliminating outdated weapons programs. (Oh, should have said in my last post that I want to dramatically increase the size of our army. Nothing is as effective as boots on the ground. We also need a military police battalion, a building and engineering battalion, and tens of thousands of specially trained elite troops who have taken rigorous language and diplomacy training.)
5-Drastically increasing taxes on diesel truck fuel and semi-truck licensing. Semi-trucks tear up our highways, and do not pay anywhere near their fair share to repair the damage they do to our roads. They also make the roads less safe, and generally less pleasant to drive on. By increasing the cost of overland shipping, companies will be forced to rail transport. This would greatly reduce traffic and pollution. Commuting would be faster and less stressful.
6-Here's the big one. Legalization of marijuana and allowing for the production of industrial hemp. If the government regulated and taxed the sale of marijuana, the tax benefits would be huge. Also, people who want to sell marijuana should have to be licensed. The tax benefits, as well as the decrease of in our prison population would be amazing.
I'm sure I'll have another idea or two soon. Keep your eyes peeled.
Who You Calling a Conservative?
Well, I've been getting some feedback from my friends about this blog. They are all very surprised about my new conservative side. I don't really know if I am a conservative. Maybe a conservative in the way old-school sense, but certainly not a contemporary American conservative. I know that by all means I should be a Republican. My family was not particularly poor. I am a white male. I am straight. I have a college education. I wish I could be, but I just don't like the way that they operate. Its always bothered me the way that Democratic wonks are always wondering how to get college educated white males into the party. Well, if Howard Dean was the nominee...
Instead of pundits saying how great it would have been if Dean was the nominee, his ability to bring young, educated professionals back into the party, they said that Dean could wreck the party because he didn't appear to have strong support in the African American community. Dean did have huge support in the gay community. Also, in Iowa, some of our strongest support came from senior citizens.
Dean could have also possibly brought fiscal conservatives back to the party. I absolutely loved his gun control policy. It seemed to me that he was winking at state's rights. I strongly support a state's rights social polciy.
Well, am I a conservative? Here are some of my main issue positions. I want a balanced budget. I want to drastically diminish our trade deficit. I want to go back to a strong dollar policy. I am against government subsidies of any kind. I want bi-lateral trade agreements, based on human rights and the opportunity to unionize workers across the world. I also support the creation of some sort of "League of Democracies," because I agree with multilateralism and international institutions. However, I think that the UN is useless, and that we should withdraw from the UN. I also want to cut our bloated pentagon budget, and to have a non-interventionalist foreign policy, when possible, but stongly support democratization efforts. I want to do all this while keeping taxes as low as possible.
I want universal healthcare, but I am strongly against the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I want to end testing based accountability for schools. I want to have free education, pre-kindergaarten through college. I think that we need to go back to more science, math, and critical thinking exercises in school. Our country will not be able to compete with the rest of the world economically because of the poor quality of our education system. But, our students sure have a lot more self-esteem than the rest of the world.
I strongly oppose race based affirmative action, but my support for class based affirmative action is equally strong.
I want to legalize, or at least decriminalize soft drugs. I am against gay marriage, for civil unions. I am all for toleration, but I dislike "celebrating diversity," and "political correctness." I am against mandatory minimum sentencing, and also term limits.
I am completely opposed to the faith-based initiative program, and against any encroachment of the church/state divide. I find the anti-intellelctualism of the Republican party especially offensive, as well as the general pop-culture phenomenon of catering to the lowest common denominator. I strongly support government in the sunshine laws, and believe that nothing should be classified, unless declassification can clearly be proven to be a national security threat. I also believe that we need an amendment to the constitution enshrining an absolute right to privacy.
I want major election reforms, including instant run-off voting, and the abolition of the electoral college. I would like to see some form of proportional representation, the end of gerrymandering, and at least doubling the size of the House of Representatives. I think that we should have a national holliday on election day. I also support same day voter registration.
I also think that we should close our borders, and restrict immigration.
Now, what does that make me? A liberal? A conservative? A libertarian? I like to think of my political philosophy as "pragmatic idealism." It sounds like an oxymoron, but it actually makes perfect sense. I want to see politicians who are idealistic, who are serving our country because they not only realize that America is the best country in the world, but they realize that there are improvements that can be made to make it even better.
Well, I'm sure I am forgetting a ton of other positions that I have, but that's the main thrust of my ideology. I feel like i have no home in any political party, but I am sticking with the Democrats for now, because I believe I can do the most good by trying to affect change from within.
So, does anyone running for office need help in crafting their platform? I'm your man. I'm sure that this topic will be revisited many times. You guys tell me what I am ideologically. Help me out. I'm not confused, I have strong beliefs. I just don't fit in anywhere. This will be continued, I'm sure.
Douchebags for Liberty!
Well, I sure hope that everyone watched the Daily Show tonight. Jon Stewart called Robert Novak a douchebag. Seriously, he said that Robert Novak was a "douchebag for liberty." Beautiful.
Monday, March 29, 2004
You Ever Met a College Dem or Republican? They Are Some Creepy Mother-Fuckers.
It's a shame the Democratic Party can't get youth outreach right, because despite the theme of last night's event--"Young Democrats United"--young liberals are far from united, and that lack of unity carries real consequences. For instance, in California last year, a phalanx of young lefties nearly cost Gavin Newsom the San Francisco mayoral election; disaffected liberals actually did cost Gray Davis his job. The inability of liberal activists to unite politically is the central thorn in the party's attempt to draw new voters. But DNC leaders can't seem to get their minds around the root cause: that young activists are driven by issues, not electoral politics. Thus, foot soldiers of, say, the campus left will storm administration buildings to demand a living wage for janitors--but ask those same activists to walk precincts for a city council candidate who advocates the same thing, and they could care less. The DNC has done little to bring these activists into the party, despite their obvious energy and potential for mobilization. It's hard to see how Starr Jones will help.
You absolutely have to read this article in TNR. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Young people, even non-voters in general are not disengaged because they are stupid. We are much more sophistocated than the squares and hacks in the Democratic Party could ever realize, because their only interaction with young people are the creepy student government types. The college Dems and Republicans. The scummy people who don't seem to care about anything idealistic, even when they are twenty years old. I am sick and tired of the Democrats telling young people that we should vote for them because it is in our best interest. That young people's political situations will be any different regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.
This leads me to another point that I've been thinking about lately. There is nothing wrong with losing an election, as long as you take strong policy differences from your opponent. That way you have the moral authority to challenge those in power if you do lose. Look at what happened in 2002. Terry McAuliffe's brilliant strategy was to ignore national security issues, and to generally support the Republican position on all security issues. Well, now most Democrats in congress cannot effectively attack the mess we've made in Iraq, and the fact that our ports, and our chemical and nuclear plants are no safer from terrorist attacks. Our nominee voted for No Child Left Behind, the Bush Tax Cuts (did he vote for the Bush tax cuts? not sure, but think he did), and the Iraq War. I know that John Kerry has major substantive policy differences from George W. Bush. But I have to keep going back to the question of how the Democrats could decide to nominate this guy? This campaign is just not going to be very much fun.
Tim Russert is a Cunt.
So the chances of this happening are what? I am guessing 3%. President Bush is going to run the most closed-off, Rose Garden campaign since Richard Nixon. Look at the way the press is handling the Dick Clarke story. Clarke absolutely hit one out of the ballpark yesterday when speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press. In one of his first statements, he directly confronts all of the character assasination attempts on him over the past week. He begs the news media to move the conversation forward onto substantive matters, and he asks for more civility all around in politics. Then, Tim Russert proceeds to play his stupid "gotcha" game for the next 45 minutes, throwing up offhand quotes from 9 years ago, or spin from Clarke acting as an administration spokesperson. I really dislike Russert's interview style. It is more like a cross-examination in a trial, where Russert is just trying to catch the guest in a contradiction of himself. Rather than talk about substantive issues, Russert is always trying to trick his guests into falling down the credibility hole, by having to refute their own past quotations. The sad part is that Russert is probably the best interviewer in the business. Who cares what people said a decade ago. Let's talk about what they are saying now. Also, the idea of "credibility" would be irrelevant if news gathering organizations did their jobs, actually did a little research, and wrote stories that actually presented the facts. Instead it is all "he said, she said" stories. The news media is so afraid to be labelled as "biased" that they are too scared to call people out when they are flat-out lying.
What Do You Call a Leper in a Bathtub?
You have absolutely got to read this article here at NYTimes. I'm really wondering when this country is going to get serious about the immigration crisis out west. I could quote the whole article, but check this out.
A few months ago, he came upon a pregnant Mexican teenager and her boyfriend looking for shelter from the cold rain. Before that, it was a man from Sicily (em. added) who spoke no English but scrawled on the ground that he wanted to get to New Hampshire. Before that, it was a man simply demanding una cerveza, a beer.
"The border is so porous that we probably get a thousand people a week coming through the ranch (em. added) — it's a sieve," said Mr. Strom
OK, the thousand people per week doesn't even need a comment. This one ranch has 1000 illegal criminals crossing each week. One ranch. 1000 criminals a week. Amazing.
The other emphasized quote is a lot scarier. Think about this. This is not some Mexican fleeing poverty, looking for a better life in the United States as an "undocumented worker." This is some guy from Sicily. Why does he want to sneak into the United States? How many people are sneaking across our border who came from Italy, or Spain, or Morocco, or Libya, or Afghanistan because of our derelection of duty in protecting our border? Will the next terrorist attack come from someone who snuck across the border? Or will it be an accident? Will some guy from Zimbabwe sneak across the US/Mexican border absolutely crawling with ebola?
I just cannot see how we are not enforcing our border policy with Mexico. Not just because these people sneaking across the border are criminals. Not just because of the possibility of a terrorist coming across the border. But simply because of the public health issue. Do you know that there are now 7000 cases of leprosy in the United States, and there were only 900 recorded cases a few years ago? I couldn't find a link to the Times article from last year, but here is the gist.
Bill Maher really nails this problem when he says that Americans should mow their own god-damn lawns. Honestly, there is no real benefit to having millions of illegal immigrants in the country. The argument I always here is that they are willing to do shitty jobs that Anglo-Americans would not be willing to do for very low wages. OK, easy solution to that one. Raise the fucking pay of shitty jobs. I'd go out and pick oranges if the pay is 8 or 9 dollars per hour. I live in Florida, I love being out in the sun, sounds pretty ideal to me. However, I sure as hell wouldn't do it for 2 dollars an hour, or whatever they pay illegal immigrants.
I know I said in my last post that constitutional law wasn't my strong suit. I do know a little bit about the downside of guest worker policies though. (I also know a bit about leprosy, I took an honors epidemics course at UF with Dr. Emcht-Deriaz, possibly my favorite class ever. I did a 20 page term paper on leprosy, it is a very scary disease. You don't want to get it. Fun fact is that we still don't know for sure what causes it, although squalid conditions may be a contributing factor.) I studied for a summer in Amsterdam, Brussels, and Germany and learned about European integration and the EU. One of the biggest problems facing Europe today is unassimilated ethnic enclaves, which were caused by the guest worker policies of the '70s because of the lack of available labor. Well, now France, the Netherlands, and Germany have millions of Moroccans, Turks, and other Arabs living in their countries who do not speak the language, and do not feel that they are active citizens of the countries that they live in. We already have approximately 13 million illegal aliens here. How many more do we want?
You should see the Arab gangs that rove through Amsterdam and especially Rotterdam. Germany has approximately 10% unemployment right now. I bet that the Germans sure wish that they would not have imported millions of Turks and Moroccans to do their blue collar labor 20-30 years ago. They wouldn't be having the unemployment problems they have today. Look at the controversy France and the Netherlands are having about Arab girls wanting to wear headscarves to school.
There are three major problems with a guest worker program. 1st-the immigrants do not leave at the end of whatever term the guest worker program is supposed to last. 2nd-they bring their families over after they save up a few years, increasing the number of immigrants which require housing, schooling, and healthcare. 3rd-they do not assimilate. Of course some do. But the vast majority refuse to learn the majority language, and to become functional members of society.
I lived out west last year in Nevada. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, but it seemed to me that the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigrants do not learn English. They are also a huge drain on our tax resources. The Las Vegas school district has to open approximately six new schools each year in order to stay on pace with immigration. Of course most of the new students are Americans who have migrated to Vegas, Clark county is the fastest growing metropolis in the US. But the rest are children of illegal immigrants, whose parents do not contribute to the tax rolls, and who are behind the American students because they cannot functionally speak or read English, which slows down the learning process for the rest of the students. Again, this is anecdotal evidence, but when I was working for the Nevada State Democratic Party, the majority of our canvass teams were made up of Mexican-Americans. These were kids between 16 and 25 years old, second generation Mexican-Americans. Some were citizens, others weren't. But, the majority of our canvassers were not only functionally illiterate, they were also unable to speak English effectively.
This is not a question of racism, or celebrating diversity, or anything else the Left may use as a smokescreen for calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers," and keeping a soft policy on illegal immigration. This is a national security issue, a public health issue, and an issue of fairness. I do not want my tax dollars paying for the children of illegal aliens to go to school. I do not want my tax dollars paying for their visits to the emergency room. I do not want my car insurance premiums to be ridiculously high in Nevada, California, Arizona and New Mexico because of the huge amounts of illegal aliens driving around without licences or insurance. If we want to get serious about helping Mexicans, let's do a Mexican Marshall plan. Let's make huge investments in education, healthcare, and the economy of Mexico. It's got a great climate, good people, and lots of natural resources. We should make it so that noone wants to come from Mexico to America, except for vacations. We should make it safer, clean up the drug trafficking (which would come from legalizing drugs. an America that makes it's own drugs is a strong America).
I am all for legal immigration. It is what makes our country great. I'm a total mutt. My dad's grandfather on his mom's side was fresh off the boat Irish. My dad's father's side was Pennsylvania Dutch, and our great, great, great grandfather fought for the Union at Gettysburg as a lieutenant in the Indiana militia. My mom's side is Native American, from the Huron tribe, which is now extinct. We have to do our immigration like the old days of the Ellis Island registration. We have to know who is in our country, where, and why they are here. It is just too dangerous to leave our border with Mexico wide open, and to allow millions of undocumented criminals to live in our country. And yes, they are all criminals. Even if they are law abiding now, they purposely crossed the border in a criminal act and are here on false pretenses. I am willing to allow for an amnesty for illegal aliens living in our country who have roots in the community, pay their taxes, and do not have a criminal record. But only on the condition that we get serious about ending the flow of illegals across the border. Otherwise, if we offer amnesty now, we'll just have to do it again in about 7 years or so.
I have to mention the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn now. Mr. Fortuyn was a bald, flamboyantly gay, socialist university professor. However, he ran on a platform that said the Dutch must get serious about the mass immigration of Arabs who are unwilling to assimilate. He said that toleration and inclusion are what makes the Netherlands great, and he saw the great threat that a combination of unassimilated ethnic enclaves and radical Islamic theology pose to Dutch society. He was then murdered by some stupid leftist white guy who was militant about animal rights. People to the left of the political spectrum in America are making the same mistake by tying their ideology to unquestioned support of Islam and mass immigration, because they believe that the oppressed people of the world should get a free pass to be as boorish and dangerous as they want because of past American Imperialism. Of course the analogy to Europe can only partially fit. Mexicans for the most part want to work, and become part of America. Again, this has nothing to do with race, I would be saying the same thing if milllions of floppy headed Canadians were storming across the border up north. We do seriously need to do something about our border with Canada as well because of the possibility of terrorists coming across. But our most pressing border issue is with Mexico. I really hope that some politician will have the guts to say this, because it is the truth. It is not politically correct, but again, it has nothing to do with race, only with continuing to make America the best country in the whole damn world.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
The Atomic Weight of Bolognium.
George Will writes an interesting op-ed about Jim DeMint, a Republican who is running for Fritz Holling's seat in the senate. Check out this quote here:
America is in, he says, "an eleventh-hour crisis" of democracy because it recently reached a point where a majority are "dependent on the federal government for their health care, education, income or retirement."
I'm fine the statement that too many people are dependent on the government for income and retirement, but education and health care? Come on. I have always hated the elitist attitude among some strains of conservatives that public education is an entitlement program that should be eliminated. What about the people who can't afford private schools? Also, where is the dividing line that for-profit public schools must decide what is an acceptable cost for quality education? I really, really don't like the idea of for-profit education. Education should be the one thing where people aren't trying to make money. I don't care how much education costs, there should be no compromise on the subject.
Conservatives are always holding up the Horatio Alger, pull yourself up from your bootstraps mythology. The only way that can happen though, is if everyone has equality of opportunity.
Has anyone seen that Simpson's episode where they are talking about the Periodic Table that the school got from Oscar Meyer? Where the atomic weight of Bolognium is "delicious"? That is the other possibility that I fear of for-profit schooling. It is just too dangerous to allow quid pro quo in our nation's public schools. In my highschool, we were forced to watch Channel 1 in our homeroom class. We weren't supposed to study, we weren't supposed to do our homework, we weren't allowed to put our heads down and rest if we were tired. Instead, we were forced to watch a total propagandic crap-fest of commercials interspersed with a little bit of news. This happened because our school signed a contract with Channel 1. Channel 1 bought televisions for each of the classrooms, and my highschool delivers a captive audience that is forced to watch their garbage.
I also find the conservative viewpoint that healthcare is somehow a privilege, not a right, to be very offensive. How can that be part of the conservative ideology? We don't live in Hobbes' state of nature. There aren't people running around hitting others with clubs to steal their apples. Don't they have even a little bit of compassion, or respect for human dignity? Do they expect people who can't afford health care to just drag themselves off into the woods and die? For poor, sick people to have the common decency to stay out of our sight, so that they don't offend our sensibilities?
I am completely against the Medicare prescription drug benefit, that is one of my biggest issues. I think that selfish old people, and people who are feeling a little blue are killing our healthcare system. But, I don't have healthcare at all. If I fell and broke my leg tomorrow, I would have to go bankrupt. If I got cancer, or some other catastrophic disease, I would also bankrupt my parents. Millionsof other American young people face the same problem. We are not willing to offer basic health coverage for all Americans when my tax dollars are going to pay for Bob Dole's viagra. I am not happy about this. But to say that public health is not in the government's interest is ridiculous.
I really want to be a conservative, but I just can't stand the elitism, sense of entitlement, and just plain mean-spiritedness that I hear coming from their side of the fence. I guess I just don't believe in Social Darwinism. I still am not a big fan of the Democratic Party, but I'll be a Democrat til the day I die as long as American conservatism is the ideology of selfishness and meanness, only concerned with their "me first," and "forget the poor, they aren't really humans" viewpoints.
Ass-Fucking and Privacy
Former Congressman Tom Campbell writes a good editorial in the NY Times today. I like a lot of what he has to say about privacy issues. He offers a suggestion for wording for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that looks a lot better than the one that is currently floating around. He also makes a good case for judges to support privacy rights. I have to say straight out that I am not a constitutional scholar. This is definitely not my strong suit. But, I have to say that Campbell is missing the big picture on privacy issues.
Last year after the Texas sodomy ruling, Rick Santorum basically said that there is no right to privacy in the US constitution. He is just about right, as far as I can tell. Legally, I thought the sodomy ruling was bad. Morally, I thought it was right on. Now I understand the general thrust of the 9th amendment about enumerated powers, and the way that judges have written a ghostly, invisible right to privacy into the constitution, but it is really not there. Why don't we put a privacy amendment onto the constitution? Then there is no more discussion about this crap. Liberty and privacy go hand and hand in my opinion.
I don't know enough about possible wording, or how to frame the issue, I'm not a lawyer. But, I think it should say something to the effect that every American has an absolute right to privacy. The state must have powers to prevent crime, to search houses, prevent against terrorist plots. That can be solved through our standard procedure of granting warrants for searches and wiretaps and stuff. There has to be due cause. What my amendment would do is prevent prosecution or even evidence gathering for the so-called "victimless crimes."
For instance, states could still outlaw "obscenity" or pornography, or drug use, or sodomy, or any other behavior that they are against. However, they could only enforce the law if someone's behavior encroaches on another person's liberty or right to privacy. People should be entitled to watch the filthiest porn they want to. Anything goes in my opinion, as long as there is consent. That would leave out animals, b/c they cannot give consent, minors, people with mental defects, people in comas, or dead people. If someone wants to watch a midget urinate on a 70 year old woman while she takes a dump in some guys mouth who is tied up and being beaten, thats there prerogative. If someone wants to grow poppies in their basement in order to make opium, that's there prerogative. Same for marijuana, or any other drug. As long as they don't sell it, show it in public, or smoke it in public.
The same thing goes for violent and "offensive" movies, music, and video games. Don't sell them to kids, fine. I have too many of my own vices that I do not want to defend. I think that everyone who jumps on the bandwagon about moral decency, whether it is crusading against Howard Stern, or Janet Jackson's nipple, or marijuana use, or pornography, or whatever should ask themselves if they are willing to defend all of their private behaviors. You never know where the next major offensive in the culture wars will take place, and over which issue. Do you want yourself to be the one defending your actions to the moralists? I don't. That is why we need a privacy amendment. I really need to go to lawschool or grad school so that I can write with more authority on this. Again, I have to say constitutional law is not my forte.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
I have to say thanks to the people who have checked out my website so far. I'm really happy about this. Please guys, let me know what you think. Let me know if you like what I say, if I am full of shit, or if you can't even understand what I am getting at in my posts, because of the mangled grammar and syntax. Also, let me know what I should talk about, let me have some suggestions for topics. Thanks again guys.
Well, I've been working on my application to the American Candidate, its going pretty good. I just need to find a camcorder now so I can tape myself trying to be interesting for 10 minutes. Anyone in Lakeland Florida out there with a camcorder I could borrow?
Friday, March 26, 2004
Here's a column from one of my favorite conservative writers, Jonah Goldberg. I've always enjoyed Jonah, because he is the first author I've seen describing "South Park Conservatives," which I consider myself. I remember a column Jonah wrote a few years ago where he trashed multiculturalism, and the idea that one cannot make value judgements on cultures. I loved his example from some encyclopedia that listed cultural accomplishments of past centuries. For the entry of the 1500's or so, there is a complex, beautiful, fully functional clock from Italy, and a wooden mask from Africa. You can talk about romantic naturalism all you want, but I like my electricity, internet, hot showers and good food. Like Bill Maher says, having rights is better than not having rights. Women being allowed to speak their mind, vote, and walk down the street wearing whatever they want is better than the alternative. Our democracy is flawed, but if we don't like it, we can protest. We can write a letter to our congressman. We don't blow each other up.
If only more political discussion was like this. Victor David Hanson writes a refreshingly mature look at our place in the world and the fact that Islamic extremism is the greatest threat to the future of humanity. National Review sometimes has some really repugnant stuff, I can't believe the racist, elitist garbage that John Derbyshire gets away with, but some of the guys writing for it really know their stuff. Here is the money quote that the Left often fails to recognize:
"It is never wrong to be on the side of freedom — never."
Also, here is an honest list of some of the problems facing our country that must be addressed.
"Finally, for the duration, to sustain both our military power and foreign largess, we also must look to ourselves inasmuch as we are running vast trade deficits, along with unsustainable budget shortfalls, and are stuck in an entitlement craze where government payouts bring not gratitude but shrill demands for even more subsidies. Our borders are porous and yet we are paralyzed and afraid to enforce our own laws — even as 12 million illegal aliens inside the United States cannot be identified or even be referred to as illegal.
Our educational system is increasingly therapeutic and turning out too many poorly educated youth who have not inherited the tradition of American expertise and competence and cannot in the immediate future ensure our privileged position as the world's most affluent consumer society. The Chinese, Europeans, South Koreans, and Japanese are all lending us money for consumption. But they do so only in the trust that our legal system, stability, and competence will continue to justify such debts, which can only be paid back on the expectation that America can sustain its global civilizing role and lead the world in technological innovation and capital formation."
Why can't we see more of this kind of candor from our political leaders, on both sides of the aisle? We are all on the same team here people, we are all Americans. We can learn so much from each other. We should try to actually talk to each other, instead of arguing talking points right past one another. Liberals, read the National Review, Weekly Standard, and Washington Times. Watch Fox News. Conservatives, give the New Republic a chance. Check out Slate and Salon. Eat your vegetables. It may start out as opposition research, but you may find that the other side actually has some good stuff to say too.
Hey, We Lost Iowa.
An excellent piece by our pollster Paul Maslin here. I saw Paul around the Des Moines office, and I think I shook his hand once. It was really surreal seeing people that you see on TV just walking around the office. I met Joe Trippi at our Christmas party, and it was like meeting a celebrity. CNN was at our Des Moines office constantly. Nothing can compare to the strangeness of knowing that if I was speaking too loud, running off my mouth, someone could be listening, and my words could end up on TV.
Here is a quote from Joe Trippi that completely nailed down the problem with our operation in Iowa:
"He had certain ideas about how to win the caucuses and was increasingly frustrated that the Iowa staff seemed to be carrying out none of them. "You need a person running each county who is in that county, no matter how small it is," he said. "This campaign has a bunch of kids in regional headquarters that never go out into the counties. You need a precinct captain for every one of the nearly two thousand precincts. Jeani doesn't believe in that. I keep asking, and they can't tell me how many we have. And you need a hard count of ones [political parlance for strong supporters who have said they'll back the candidate]—that's what Mondale did. That's what Gephardt did, and he's doing it again. Our campaign doesn't know how many ones it has, and I keep asking for it!"
Here is another huge problem, the same thing that happened to Senator McGovern in '72. " It would fly in the face of the campaign's whole message of openness and change, and would reveal Dean as just another politician. (em added)
And on the Perfect Storm:
"The Stormers ventured out into the bitter cold of that last weekend, wearing their trademark orange hats, and the Iowans politely said no, thank you. One can certainly speculate that we went deep into overkill. A woman in a focus group had told us that she was sick of being called again and again by Deaniacs; multiply her by thousands. One can also assume that Iowans, stubborn to the end, were tired of being told it "must" be Dean—whether by the news media or Al Gore or Tom Harkin or a bunch of kids in orange hats."
And how about this for a closer?
"I thought Dean might have the van stop so he could greet his supporter. But he just looked at him for a few seconds and then turned back to us and said, "They may have fucked up Iowa, but they sure changed America." We all laughed, particularly Dean himself, still happy from his day with Judy. But I immediately realized, as I think he did too, that he could just as easily have said "we" instead of "they."
Good article. Check it out.
Beautiful story on Salon today about moderate Republicans and the quandrary they are in. This paragraph sums up exactly where I am right now. I'd rather be a Teddy Roosevelt Republican than a John Kerry Democrat, but I just don't seem to have a choice right now.
Moderate Republicans are often fiscal conservatives but social liberals -- in many ways, the exact opposite of this administration. They believe in balanced budgets, environmental conservation and a foreign policy that's strong without being needlessly belligerent. They see themselves as the heirs of former President Teddy Roosevelt, the avid conservationist and trustbuster, and former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, the philanthropist, statesman and governor of New York. The party they joined was staid and dignified. It was the other party that seemed shrill and radical.
I'm still waiting for the major third party guy to jump into the race. It is wide open for a moderate independent to run. Ralph Nader isn't going to do anything, plus he is so obnoxious, I want to like the guy whenever I watch him on TV, but he seems really priggish. I really think that the middle could be wide open, I just hope someone has the balls to do it. Jim Jeffords would be perfect, but noone even remembers who he is. Jeffords really messed up when he switched political parties a few years back. If he had called for a special election and run as an independent, he would have gained huge legitimacy and could have been the figurehead of a new independent movement. Instead he got bogged down in defending his decision, and the Republicans can forever snipe at him for being illegitimate because the people of Maine (oops, I mean Vermont, right?) elected a Republican, not an Independent. He really squandered that moment in the spotlight. If he had called for a special election, he would have been in the media spotlight constantly, and could have had a huge microphone to make changes in the way business is conducted in congress. He blew that one.
I think that my dream ticket for 2004 would be a Jim Jeffords/Gary Johnson ticket. They could truly move debate forward in this country on so many issues. If anyone else has a dream ticket, post a comment, we'll discuss it more. I've been dreaming about a strong independent, moderate challenge for president. Someone could simply take the best parts of each of the also-rans and unfulfilled promises from the past elections. They could run as Uniters not Dividers. They could run on real compassionate conservatism. They could run on John McCain's straight talk platform, and give as much openness of the campaign to the public, like the Dean campaign did. The whole "You have the power thing." They could openly court Colin Powell, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, George Voinovich, Lincoln Chafee, call them out by name saying that making our country a better place should be more important than partisanship. Government shouldn't be about fighting battles, and winner take all wars where only the winner's viewpoint is considered.
I would also love to see a candidate say that they believed in the Powell doctrine for their military policy. That war should only be a last result, when we have overwhelming force, a clear exit strategy, and a rebuilding plan. I would love to see someone say that they would offer Colin Powell Secretary of State in their administration, but they would actually allow him to do what he believes in, and what is best for the country, rather than serving as a partisan tool. Wouldn't that be great? How could the Bush team defend against that? Keep your eyes peeled everyone. I have a feeling there will be a third party revolt, and hopefully it will be coming right down the middle, not left or right. I have a lot more to say about that, in fact a whole campaign gameplan that I will get into later for an Independent.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
The way the Right twists language, the way they have hidden attacks in every tossed off comment is amazing. Check out Newt Gingrich's editorial in the WaPost here:
Ironically, President Bill Clinton understood that focusing on the future and on new jobs, new technologies and the creation of larger markets was the key to ensuring that our children and grandchildren would have the best, highest-paying jobs in the world, with the large wealth creation that allows our seniors the opportunity of a prosperous retirement.
Why is that ironic, Mr. Gingrich? I liked a lot of what he said in this article, but it just pisses me off that everything has to be in some form an attack on Democrats or President Clinton. Grow up. Isn't that ironic?
Well, sometimes Maureen Dowd writes something that isn't total garbage. I wish she would write more columns like this. When she is on, she is really good. Unfortunately she is usually writing about ties or stupid verbal gaffes. I am really thinking that Dick Clark could be it for the president and his team of scoundrels.
How cool is this? Showtimes new reality show, The American Candidate. I didn't watch Who Wants to Be a Governor, or whatever the last show was during the California recall. I tried to avoid reading or watching anything about the recall, when possible. I really hated the whole recall idea. I like the idea of recalls, but the way it happened was just so sleazy. There was no malfeasance from Grey Davis. He didn't do anything criminal, or even having the "appearance of impropriety." He was just a lameass, political hack of the worst stripe. That guy who started up the whole recall thing, Darrell Issa, now that guy is on the same level of dorkiness as Steven Moore and old Grover Norquist. Serious douchebags. Remember when he started crying when the Republicans wouldn't get behind him? What a pansy. I think that if I were in California I would have had to do the same as Mickey Kaus, voting against the recall, but for Schwarzenegger. I always want to vote for whoever will shake things up the most because the system is so broken right now. Real quick, for funsies, I'll tell you guys who I would have voted for in the past few elections. Well, 2000 I voted for Nader. '96 I would have voted for Clinton. '92 I would have voted for Perot, I believe. '88 I probably would not have voted. '84, same thing (I really don't like Walter Mondale. I can't believe how much of a tool he was when he was running for Senator Wellstone's seat after he died. I'll talk about that more later.) '80, John Anderson. '76 Carter. '72, of course my main man Senator McGovern. '68, probably George Wallace, although I would have been knocking on doors for Senator McCarthy every day (Eugene McCarthy is my favorite politician of the past 50 years.) Seriously though. Although Wallace was abhorrent, I detest Hubert Humphrey. I believe that he is the lamest, most soulless politician in the Democratic party for the last 50 years, (I have a lot more to say about the Hump, will get to him later. He killed the party. Made it for the squares, squeezed out all of the good stuff that Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern tried to do.) '64, Goldwater, and '60 Kennedy. That's enough. Anyways, before I got onto that tangeant, I was talking about the American Candidate. I am in the process of filling out the application. God, I would love to be on that show. It's pretty funny that they let anyone on the show who is over 18, even though we can't run for president until we are 35. I plan to write about this subject at a later time, it really burns me up. I believe in rules and regulations, but not arbitrary crap. Like being forced to sign up with the selective service at 18, but being unable to drink. Age requirements for running for office. State enforced curfews for 17 year olds, but on the magic day you turn 18 you can do whatever you want. There are all kinds of things like that that burn my ass. Anyhow, Showtime and America at large better watch out. I've got a whole mouthful of things to say, and I'm not afraid to say it. I'm gonna be rocking out with my caucus out again soon. Rock on.
So, this 9/11 stuff is looking pretty exciting. I have been keeping one eye on it, but I haven't seen the testimony. I'm looking forward to seeing all of the recaps tomorrow. I don't know enough to comment yet, but it looks like Dick Clark might be the first one to draw some blood. Let's see what happens.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Howard Dean's Legacy.
There have been a lot of Dean legacy op-eds floating around since the announcement of Democracy for America last week. I think that the biggest oversight in all the coverage about all of the ways that internet organizing and meetups and blogging and relational organizing and volunteer activities is that Dean had more activity that any candidate, possibly ever, but he still at the end of the day, got his ass kicked.
I'm starting to think that activity and field work is not really all that important in campaigns. I think it is all about TV, and social networks. The thing I noticed most in my eight months of voter contact, both in Las Vegas and in Iowa, most people don't want to talk about politics to a stranger. There were a lot of great people I met out there, and the good 20-30 minute conversations made it possible to put up with the doorslams, and dogs barking, and the Vegas heat, and the Iowa snow, and the just plain mean people out there, but it was really tough at times.
Other than the supercitizens, the few people who read the newspapers and political internet sites, the news junkies like me and other politics people, the vast majority get their opinions from TV ads and the evening news coverage, as well as in conversations with friends about politics. I think we political types, overestimate the lack of interest most people have in American politics and government. Political elites on both sides of the aisle ignore the vast majority of Americans who just want to be left alone, and just want the status quo, maybe a little better.
Instead debate is framed by the extremes, because they are the only ones talking substantively. Noone wants confrontation, they don't want to have to go to meetings to talk about politics. I think Americans are truly "Bowling Alone" now. We all have a small group of friends, and we want to be left alone by everyone else. We can watch the Real World, or Elimidate and other awkward strained "reality shows" for our reality. Seriously though, I want to be left alone too. I simply don't like the effort of going to a political meeting, or having a bake sale, or whatever. I simply don't like being involved with that dorky stuff, because simply put, I'm lazy. I don't think I am too far off from most other "regular people."
I just don't know how effective all of the 527's and voter contact PACs and the new Dean movement, and meetups actually will prove to be. I wish that all of this money would just get dumped into TV ads, but not the garbage ads that say nothing and are produced by slick ad agencies, or the negative attack ads that take an opponent's quote out of context from 15 years ago, but rather simple 1 minute ads of a candidate just expressing his issue positions.
The political world and the political science taught in univesities is so tied into the idea of marketing and focus groups and polling that they don't realize the real reason that Dean almost succeeded last year. He was angry. He called the Democratic party out for laying down to the Republicans. However, he never evolved as a candidate. He started listening to all of the dipshit consultants that told him to stay on message and never changing the stump speech because it tested well. To "staying positive"-which really means don't say anything except fluff and filler- up until the last minutes in our ads, because "going negative" is bad.
The term "going negative" is thrown around so readily now, that bringing up any policy difference between a candidate and his opponent is considered "going negative." We need a real discussion. We can make it mean and nasty if it is about the issues. I just don't like the way the Kerry and Bush campaigns are so superficially nasty, without giving real policy critiques of one another. This was exactly what Gephardt did in Iowa, and his support dropped like a stone. He should have won Iowa in a landslide, but his relentlessly negative campaign against Dean really turned voters off. It wasn't because it was negative. It was because it was negative without offering substance. I think we could see the same thing happen to both George Bush and John Kerry. But where would the voters go? That I don't know.
People are much more sophistocated than consultants give them credit for being. Political elites need to stop talking down to the voters, trying to find the lowest common denominator. People aren't disengaged because they are stupid. They are disengaged from the political process because they don't like to be talked down to, and to tell the truth, getting worked up over politics is something that dorks do. Look at Steven Moore and Grover Norquist. Those guys are real dorks. They still get things accomplished, but lets make politics for the cool kids again.
Scary Scary Shit. Nucular Shit.
I have been on vacation in Orlando the past week, staying with some old friends. They aren't particularly political people, they both come from Republican families and are both probably going to vote for Bush if they do vote. We talked about the ads that have been coming on lately from the Bush campaign, the ones that basically say that John Kerry is weak on terror, and that we won't be safe if he is elected, and that George W. Bush makes us safe. They are buying this crock, and I couldn't convince them otherwise. I was having trouble coming up with a coherent answer as to why to vote for Kerry. Well, here it is. This is absolutely terrifying. We could be using nuclear weapons in the near future. Seriously. Nuclear fucking war.
Scary Quote: "The new strategy embraces the administration's philosophy of preemptive strikes as well as the Rumsfeld vision of integrating special and covert operations and nuclear weapons into future conventional military planning."
Scariest Quote: "The plan signals to the world that the United States considers nuclear weapons useful military instruments, to be employed where warranted."
This is so dangerous, I can't even wrap my head around it yet. I've been upset about the administration's plans for low-yield nukes from the beginning, but this really brings into focus just how dangerous George Bush's foreign policy plan is. I need some time to digest this article, I'll comment more later.
Well, been on the road this past week and haven't done any reading, watching news or writing. Am a bit out of the loop. Will get back into the swing of things soon though. Two big pieces of news though. Dr. David Hedge of the University of Florida is running for congress in Gainesville, not sure which CD yet. Dr. Hedge was the chair of the Poli. Sci. department at UF while I was there. He seemed like a really good guy to me. I never had a class with him, but he did help me out with some advising a few times. I hope to learn more about his campaign soon, but I am very glad to hear he is running. Also, a Dean for America alumnus is running for the Florida House of Representatives in Volusia county, FCD-26. Dana Rasch worked out in the Iowa campaign. I don't believe I met Dana, but I can't be sure. There were a ton of people out there. I'm very excited about this as well. I'm looking forward to seeing how many Dean staffers run for congress. I think it could still be a good year for the Dean campaign. We'll have to see what Democracy for America can do. I'm getting excited again.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
We have a fun little collection of quotes from the Right here on tompaine.com.
"Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist."
- Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), House Majority Whip, during a debate on increasing the minimum wage, Congressional Record, H3706, 04-23-96
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past—I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble—recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01
Check them out. Its a lot of fun, amazing what these people get away with.
Monday, March 15, 2004
You Gotta Fight, For Your Right...
Democrats, liberals, "The Left," progressives, moderates, independents; basically everyone involved in political discourse that is not part of the Republican echo-chamber, do a really shitty job of standing up for each other. We really need to learn how to close ranks, and protect each other from the smears that the Republicans constantly get away with. One of my biggest pet-peeves is the way that Paul Krugman is libelled as somehow dangerous. That he is at best unpatriotic, maybe even a communist sympathizer, we don't know. We do know that he is a "liberal" though. That is total crap. Krugman is as boring as a moderate could possibly be. He is pretty damn conservative when it comes to economics, since he is maintaining the same tenets of economics that have been around forever. Krugman's focal point of his commentary is that it is better to have a balanced budget than one that is running a drastic deficit. That is not exactly a "liberal" viewpoint in the classic sense. The guy knows what he is talking about. He went to college for 7 years studying economics. Here is the best that NRO's Donald Luskin can do in disputing Krugman's column this weekend about lost jobs found here.
Luskin says: "Of course, Paul Krugman — America's most dangerous liberal pundit — has been doing his ample share of the lying...Krugman is referring to the fact that the unemployment rate is the fraction of the labor force that is unemployed. He's claiming that the unemployment rate has fallen not because there have been new jobs created, but "entirely" because the labor force has gotten smaller.
The truth is that both have happened. The unemployment rate is calculated by the Department of Labor's “household survey,” which shows clearly that jobs have increased at the same time as the labor force has shrunk. Krugman is not clear exactly what he means by “since last summer,” but no matter which summer month we take as the starting point, jobs have increased and the labor force has shrunk. It’s a flat-out bald-faced lie to claim that the drop in the unemployment rate is “entirely the result of people dropping out of the labor force.”
Look at the way Luskin harps on Krugman's use of the word "entirely." He does not refute Krugman's claim at all, he just says that Krugman is a liar because he did not include the miniscule increase in jobs in his analysis of the job landscape. Krugman is totally correct, our current unemployment rate is artificially low because of the huge amount of people who have simply given up. But because he says "entirely" instead of 90%, or 75% or whatever the actual percentage of net change in unemployment rate caused by people giving up looking for work, Luskin calls him a dangerous liar. I'm amazed at the hate that many people on the Right can have for their partisan opposition. One can almost feel the hatred pouring out of Luskin's commentary on Krugman. One can almost hear what Luskin really means when he says "liberal." The right has turned that word on its head. It now really means "pussy," or "faggot," or some slur that means someone who is less than a man. Seriously, listen to the way that O'Reilly and Limbaugh spit the word out of their mouth as if it pains them to say it. They say it with such contempt. I agree with the commentators that say that Democrats should stand up and reclaim the word liberal. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I am sick and tired of the crap that the Republicans get away with.
Kerry Campaign, Scummy Operation
Now this is exactly what I was talking about here. (This link is supposed to take you to my long post on the way the Kerry campaign ran some of their Iowa operation. I'm still having trouble w/ the Blogger software. Sorry, just scroll down.) The Kerry campaign is a really scummy operation, but they are also very effective. They know how to piss off their rivals, and know that a pissed off campaign is a campaign that makes mistakes. They are great at keeping an opponent off balance. I am impressed with the rapid response capability, and their commitment to taking the fight to Bush and the Republicans. Unfortunately, it is all just petty tricks, not real substance. I am still very ambivalent about Kerry and his campaign. I am constantly impressed, but at the same time, their tactics leave a very bad taste in my mouth. I was hoping that Edwards made a move on Kerry after Dean was effectively done in the nomination race. Dean was criticized for being negative, angry, and mean. At least he was angry and negative over substantive policy disputes with the Bush administration and the leadership of the Democratic party. John Edwards was running a positive campaign, and if he had gotten the nomination, he could have had a very poweful shield to Bush's attacks. He could simply say, "As Democrats we are better than this kind of campaign. I want to take this country in a positive direction. I also know that President Bush is a better man than this. We deserve a reall debate, etc." Now we have the worst possibley situation. We have someone running a negative, mean and nasty campaign, but he's not fighting on policy. John Kerry is just nit-picking, trying to draw a major distinction from the President when he supported most of his policies this term. Democrats, why did you pick this guy? I just don't get it.
Damn, the filing deadline for Iowa congressional races is Friday. It would be pretty tough getting 7,000 signatures for Phil James in four days. Oh well, 2006 is just around the corner. Well, I guess its time to find a new scheme. Back to the old drawing board.
Scoring Cheap Political Points by Debating Issues. The Nerve!
Wow, the Bush campaign is really full of crap on their reasons for not wanting to debate Kerry now. I'm watching Neil Cavuto on Fox right now, and Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman, was on, defending the decision not to have monthly debates. He gives a really lame answer: (paraphrase) "John Kerry is trying to score cheap political points, and garner easy headlines to get the focus of the campaign away from all of this negative campaigning going on. He isn't serious about really wanting the debates. Also, the American people don't want debates until the fall." He also says (paraphrase) "John Kerry is on both sides of every issue. He needs to finish the debate with himself before he can debate president Bush." These are really cheap answers to the question, and it is pretty insulting to the American people that they won't answer even address the question honestly. Holt's logic is completely bent. He is insinuating that the campaign should be more about Kerry saying that he is up against "lying crooks" and questioning each other's patriotism rather than substantive issues. The Bush campaign is pushing the media to continue this superficial, BS coverage of elections, making them more about personality than issues. I think that they are scared because the commercial media is actually sorta getting its shit together. The coverage has definitely improved since 2000, although there is still a long way to go. I certainly hope that the Kerry campaign continues to press this issue hard. They have everything to gain from the appearance that Bush is stonewalling the debates. Good job Kerry campaign.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Be Cool! Like the Weekly Standard!
I'm really puzzled by this editorial on Weekly Standard here. The guy makes a few good points here and there, mostly about pop culture, but what exactly is his main thrust? He wants everyone to be a square? People should not enjoy themselves? They should get a job, have some kids, work for 40-50 years then die? Is that what Joseph Epstein's version of adulthood encompasses? I do agree with his condemnation of self-esteem being such a focus of American life. That really is a huge problem. But, what is so wrong with wearing a tee-shirt to a baseball game? I also have to quibble with his problems with animation and the juvenile nature of pop culture. What about South Park? That is one of the funniest, best written television shows, ever. Same for the Simpsons, Family Guy, and the Adult Swim shows on Cartoon network. They are vulgar, profane, mean-spirited cartoons, but they are hilarious. Isn't that the point? There are really phenomenal movies, music, television that all comes out but is not promoted, or not given a chance in the media. Look at http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/. I've heard about some of my favorite bands here, not from Clear Channel, not from MTV. The bigger problem than the perpetual adolescent is the condescension that adults have for youth culture. MTV and Clear Channel Radio are absolutely awful. American Idol is crap. Reality shows, bad sitcoms, these aren't made by kids. They are made by adults with no taste who are aiming for the lowest common denominator. So many of my friends ask about how I hear about the bands I listen to, or the movies I watch, or the websites I go to, or the books I read. It takes effort. I have to actively search out quality, because it is not readily available in the mainstream media. Back to Joseph Epstein though. I really don't like the tone of his article. I feel like it was almost directed at me personally. I enjoy myself, and I enjoy my life. I am unsure what to do now, but I know that whatever I do will be some sort of an adventure. I simply cannot bear the thought of working in the same office, living in the same town for the rest of my life. I am glad I was born in 1981 instead of 1921. I may be less mature than the youth who grew up during the depression, but I think I enjoy life a whole lot more.
I Said This Way Before Andrew Sullivan Ever Did.
What is the ideology of the Republican party? They aren't conservatives, that's for sure. I've been thinking about this for the past few years. I can't figure out how they can continue to be elected to office. This is not a center-right party of free market conservatives. It is some bizarre amalgam of neo-Keynesian economic theory, K-Street lobbying, the military/oil/prison industrial complex, with a good solid dose of social Darwinism wedded to Evangelical Christianity. They are always saying that they are a big tent party. What kind of tent is that? I've heard the quote that if America was any other country, the Democrats would be five parties. The Republican party could be just as many. I want to return to this later. I want to see a new name for the Republican ideology. It is not fair that they get to call themselves conservatives.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
This is seriously not right. I don't even know what the guy said, but I am getting really nervous about this FCC sleeping giant thing. God Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson are lame as hell. I still can't figure out why they did it. It wasn't cool. Plus, her tit looks like a mom's tit.
Yeah this is about right.
I never played this while I was on the campaign, I didn't read the blog or anything either, I was too busy actually doing work. It was funny, our supporters knew so much more about what was going on in our campaign in Iowa than I did. Its the campaign bubble. Anyways, here is the Dean game too.
What a Stupid World!
Dennis Miller had a good observation on his show tonight. Yeah, I watch the Dennis Miller show. I like Scarborough Country a lot too. I also watch O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes when I get a chance, and my favorite is Rush Limbaugh in the car. Bunch of pompous dicks, but they sure know how to bullshit. I respect someone who knows how to argue. How to manipulate and inflame passions. It takes talent. Anyways, I was watching Miller and he says, "So in order of a threat to national security we've got 1-andro, 2-gay marriage, 3-broadcast indecency, and 4-terrorism." Seriously, what is wrong with our news media, our priorities as a nation? We are still talking more about whether Kerry should apologize for the lying comment, and if Martha Stewart deserves her conviction, and Kobe Bryant's accuser being a hoochie. There was a giant fucking terrorist action against one of our strongest allies the other day. David Kay recently said that George Bush needs to "come clean" about lying to Americans. Tom DeLay is running a political favor machine that is corrupt and illegal to the bone. Why are our priorities so messed up? Why do I have to worry about this kind of shit.
Bill Hicks, Cancer, etc.
I am a little bummed out tonight. I broke down and got digital cable at my parent's house today because I absolutely have to be able to watch Sopranos. I drove to Gainesville last week to do it, but it is a pain in the ass driving 130 miles to watch tv. Well, anyway I found this new channel buried in the middle of all of the crap channels they give you. It's called Trio, its about pop culture and meta-entertainment bullshit. Anyways, I watched a show about Bill Hicks. God, I loved Bill Hicks. I found out about him in my sophomore year of college and downloaded all of his stuff from Kazaa. I've always hated stand up comedy as a whole, but loved certain stand ups. Denis Leary. Chris Rock. Dave Chapelle. Dana Gould used to be really good. And Bill Hicks. God, he was amazing. He already said it all. There is really not much else to say in the world of commentary. He laid it all down. Anyways, it is really depressing seeing how the media screwed him. How America didn't give him a chance. How he spent most of his time arguing with stupid rednecks at chickenshit bars. He is the bravest motherfucker I can think of. Rather than falling into the trap of most people who want to change the world for the better, by just talking to people who already believe the same things you believe, the ghetto effect, Bill Hicks caused confrontation. He challenged people. He didn't just do his material to some hip audience in New York or L.A. that would really get him. He went to Idaho and talked about hypocrisy and Jesus and pot and fucking. God he was brave. He was a goddamn hero. I just wish that just one time, the good guys would win. I am still an optimist, sorta. It has to happen sometime. Chapelle is kicking some ass this time. Good luck Dave, and keep it up.
"And I'm Just a Kid - I Can't Believe that I've Gotta Worry About This Kind of Shit!"
I've been thinking about this a lot the past two days, I don't really know how to say it without sounding really really evil. Anyway, here it goes. The attack in Spain was really good for us. That is why we needed to have Russia, and Germany, and France all on our team when we went to Iraq. Terrorist blowback. To win this war on terrorism, we need to have French children blown up on buses by Al Qaeda. We need the whole world to make a commitment to fighting against radical Islamic extremism, and we missed our chance last year to bring it all together. It is horrible, I feel awful for the people in Spain, and the people who did it deserve to fucking die. However, Spain is on our team now for good. Andrew Sulliivan is right. He's been writing about the major split in our country isn't the Blue state/Red state. Its those who realize we are at war, and those who don't. Every nation that joined our coalition of the willing took huge risks. The leaders of these countries knew it wouldn't be popular, and it probably isn't the right thing to do in a legalistic international relations sort of view. But, when America says you are either with us or against us, you have got to be crazy not to go with us. I am still amazed at how badly the Bush administration managed to turn the unprecedented amount of sympathy and comraderie that the entire world felt for America after 9/11 into the current international mess. They fucked it up so bad. He is the president of missed opportunities (a later little essay). I was living in Las Vegas last year, and to tell the truth, part of the reason I was willing to move is that I am afraid it won't be there in ten years. I love that town. I think its the third best city in the world, behind Amsterdam and Gainesville. But, I think we are going to have another major scary terrorist attack within the next few years. There is no reason to think it won't happen. And, its probably going to be Las Vegas or Seattle or Boston or DC. They already got New York. I've been thinking about this Propagandhi lyric a lot lately. Its from Nation States- "and i'm just a kid- i can't believe that i gotta worry about this kind of shit! what a stupid world! yeah, this is just beautiful... absolutely no regard for principle. what a stupid world." I really shouldn't have to be worrying about this. I'm 22 for Christ's sake. I should only be concerned with getting high and getting laid, not how many people in my country will die by the time I'm thirty because of terrorism. What the fuck man.
Friday, March 12, 2004
I'm Outraged at the Outrage!
It seems to me that outrage is the true American political currency. Look at the way the Republicans are responding to Kerry's comments. All you hear are demands for an apology. Outrage, disappointment, etc. Why not ask Kerry to back up his assertations about the lying and the scummyness of Republican pols? Please make Tom DeLay an issue in this campaign. I also must say that I think the Kerry campaign did this on purpose. Seriously. that's the way they act. I don't like it, and they seem like hacks to me, but I have to admit it. The Kerry folks are good at this whole politics thing. They beat the pants off of us in Iowa fair and square. They just do it without any class. They are people who truly understand how to organize. They know all about movement compared to activity. The Dean campaign probably worked harder in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Kerry people worked smarter. One quick example of the way Kerry operated. We decided that our final rally in Iowa would be in Ames, at Ames highschool at 4PM the day of the caucus. Everyone would gather up, scream about Dean, watch Joan Jett sing a song from 20 years ago, and then go to their respective caucuses. Ames High was one of the biggest battlegrounds in the state of Iowa. There were approximately 100 votes in play at that school, and the Ames area was the second largest block of delegates than Des Moines. We had been getting good movement at the school. We had several great volunteers, and our Generation Dean people were in constant contact with our supporters at the school. (Oh, there was an mock caucus with surrogates from each of the campaigns. Kucinich sent Patch Adams, the doctor guy. He is a gigantic asshole. Seriously. I know he treats terminally ill kids and all that, but he is still a dick. Tell you about that later.) Well, back to the sleazy Kerry stuff. Kerry's campaign finds out that we are having our final rally there, so he decides to schedule an event for 4:30 at Ames High. Keep in mind the caucuses are at 6PM. So he effectively ends our final rally, squeezes us for time, takes our thunder, and prevents us from campaigning after our Ames event because of travel and event set-up constraints. He did the same thing at the party in Ames where he did his famous Puff the Magic Dragon, international pot smokers sign for toking. He did the same thing to John Edwards after the February 3rd primaries by playing games with when he would give his speech. He coopted Edwards' time at 9. Its just the way they work. It is petty, and annoying, and just plain dick-ish. However, its effective. They know how to demoralize another campaign, they know how to annoy and just plain piss off the other campaigns enough to make them ineffective. They also campaign purely negatively. They called our lists of supporters, and went straight negative. How did they get our support lists? Absolutely no security at the Dean for America campaign in Iowa (to be discussed later). Also a nasty little anecdote about a former Dean staffer who signed on with the Kerry campaign. I'll get to all that eventually. Anyway, back to my main point. I bet you anything that Kerry knew his mic was on. He really is bringing the fight to Bush, purposefully causing confrontations. He keeps putting bait out there, and everyone bights. I believe their campaign put out the adultery rumors a few weeks ago. Just watch. Kerry is going to continue to "make mistakes" or new should be damaging info is going to keep coming on a regular basis. The Kerry campaign is going to keep leaking pseudo-bad stuff about Kerry, so that he can keep knocking it down with a big baseball bat. The Kerry campaign is made up of pure politicians. They are sleazy, they care more about perception than reality. However, they are good at their jobs. Damn good at their jobs. I think Rove, DeLay, Gillespie, Racicot, Norquist and the other homeboys running things RNC are scared. Maybe Kerry wasn't such a bad pick after all for a pure campaigner. He campaigns like a rabid rat. He is a pure politician, in the Grey Davis sense. I think he can beat the hell out of Bush, Kerry's team is smarter and meaner. Gore had too many spineless pollsters, and just plain wusses. All of the knee-cappers are on with Kerry. We could have used a few of those kinda guys. The Dean campaign had way too many good guys with integrity to win in politics. We did have some serious douche-bag poll readers too, but for the most part, we had the idealists.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Mickey Kaus nails a major problem w/ Kerry here. Money quote: "It's that in his inconstancy he flips wrong--the far more serious charge of bad judgment." I really don't know what to do here. Can I in good conscience work for a coordinated Democratic campaign if John Kerry is our nominee? I know he will be a zillion times better than George W. Bush. But, on the other hand, he seems like a majorly unprincipled whore. But on the other other hand, Al Giordano @ www.bigleftoutside.com seems to like him, and he really knows his shit. I really trust the guy. Al, tell us the secrets that you know about Kerry that noone else seems to know. Help me out here.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Who is Phil James?
This is Phil James.
This is going to be the next congressman from the great state of Iowa.
Get ready America.
True Believers
That was the most depressing/inspiring thing I've seen since the campaign. God dammit, I forgot how bad the media screwed us. God dammit, dammit, dammit. I needed that though. It makes me want to fight again. The people on this campaign were phenomenal. I've got to get back into this. Trippi was so right about the addictive nature of politics. I was so tired all the time. It was the hardest thing I've ever done, going without sleep, eating Burger King three meals a day. But it was awesome. How did we lose? I still can't figure it out. Forget about those bullshit posts I put before about the Iowa campaign. I have been sulking for the last month, digging a hole for myself. I'm back. Let's fucking go!
Ok, I've been thinking about this all day. I just can't stop thinking about it. I'm going to call him soon. I just want this on the record. I've figured it out. I'm going to draft Phil James to run for congress in Iowa. I don't know exactly where he lives, I don't know what congressional district he's in. I don't know if he is in a Democratic or Republican district. I don't care if he says yes or no. Phil James will be elected to the United States House of Representatives if I can help it. Here's where it starts. Let's go.
I'm nervous about watching the Dean TV show tonight. I'm afraid it will be depressing. I hope I see some people I know, but its going to be a real kick in the nuts seeing what happened on the campaign again. I'm really afraid that they only talked to the freaks on the campaign too. I assure you guys ahead of time that there were regular, funny, and cool people on the campaign in Iowa. There were some serious weiners though too, so be warned.
Holy Moly! Marjorie nailed it. I just checked the WaPost eds. If I could write that well, that's what I would have said. here
Man, I Miss Howard Dean
Now, if anyone were to actually read my blog, they might ask themself "Why did a self-professed libertarian/conservative work for Howard Dean? Isn't he the guy that lead that caravan of 'long-haired, Volvo drivers' to wreck Iowa?" Well, because I want low taxes. But wait, Bush cut taxes, right? Yeah, but I am 22, and as I said in an earlier post, I'm poor. Most of Bush's tax benefits went to those who are already wealthy, or to people who have kids. I don't know if I want to ever have kids, but I certainly plan to be wealthy at some point in my life. The problem with these tax cuts now is that they are contributing to our budget deficit. We also just passed a gargantuan prescription drug benefit for greedy old people, while people my age don't even have guaranteed health care just for catastrophic events. Also, there are a hell of a lot more people who are my parents age who will be retiring over the next two decades, than there are people my age, and because social security is a pyramid scheme, and Medicare growth is completely unsustainable, our government will either have to default on its debt, or raise taxes drastically. Now, because we don't live in a banana republic, I assume the government won't default on the debt. That means we are going to have huge, astronomical taxes when we are actually making money. I wish that every young person in the College Republicans would think about that. When you actually start making money, the government is going to ream you. So, don't vote Republican! These low taxes on rich people now don't do anything for me. But in 10 years if I'm actually making a little money, I don't want to have to pay 60% of my income to the federal government to keep paying for Bob Dole's Viagra. So that's why I went to work for Governor Dean. He has actually balanced a budget. He did it without drastically raising taxes. He was the candidate of fiscal restraint. He also was against the war, which was actually the conservative principle. Throwing out 65ish years of foreign policy is not exactly conservative. I'll go into how George W. Bush is a flaming liberal in a later post. The most important reason I wanted to work for Governor Dean is that George W. Bush is going to lose in November, no matter who the nominee is. I want someone with some principle. Someone who actually excites people. Someone who could bring more people to the voting booth. Most of the people working in Iowa were under 25. Even those in major leadership roles. This was a campaign for the future. Plus Governor Dean didn't have to mortgage his house to fund his campaign. Thousands of people cared enough to donate 25 or 50 or 100 bucks a piece. I voted for Nader in 2000 because I was actually stupid enough to believe Bush when he said he was a compassionate conservative with a humble foreign policy. I wanted to vote for McCain, but he was done before the Florida primary even rolled around. Senators McCain and Bradley were the good guys that time. I believe that Dean and Edwards were the good guys this time. Eventually a good guy will win. One of these elections the Democrats will decide not to pick the easiest target for the Republicans. Are all Democrats closet masochists?
Serious Journalism
Why is print media so horribly, awfully, spectacularly bad? I read an AP story in my local paper today. I have a feeling that this is not going to be a very fun campaign. Ron Fournier wrote some garbage fluff piece. Pseudo-election "analysis," and it is already turning into 2000 all over again. Here are a couple of quotes. In the candidate style section:
"Bush has been well-liked and trusted, even by some Democrats, since the attacks. His Texas swagger and gentle wit helped him defeat a comparatively stiff Al Gore in 2000.""
then:
"As for Kerry, he is a plodding campaigner who has a hard time projecting warmth."
What if I was working for a newspaper and wrote an article saying:"Ron Fournier is a pompous 'reporter' who writes boring, biased, and useless opinion columns that masquerade as objective analysis." Is that news, or opinion? I know I didn't take many journalism classes, but that's not news! That should be on the editorial page. and just to show that media bias is neither liberal or conservative, but equal opportunity stupidity, he has this zinger on social issues:
"Conservatives are fighting against gay rights, for gun rights and against abortion rights." Really? I didn't get that memo. Seriously. Hey Al Giordano, I'm ready to go to Authentic Journalism school, help me out man. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more
Well, its tax time. I just checked the IRS website because I wanted to learn a bit more about the earned income tax credit, because I am poor. Last year I earned less than 11,000 dollars, because of a long bout of unemployment after my college graduation. I don't have any kids (that I know of, haha) so I would only be eligible for the $382 in free money, not the 2000 something dollars I would have been eligible for if I had a kid. Things are looking good. But wait, I'm not 25. I am not eligible for the the EIC. It's funny. My insurance company was happy to drop me when I graduated college, and if I happened to be born a few months earlier, they would have happily dropped me as soon as I turned 23. Talk about discrimination, man. I worked last year, and I'm poor. What a load of crap that I can't get the free money. I'm going to write a letter to my congressman.
You know who I'd like to see run for any office? Lou Dobbs. Just a fun thought. Nothing else to say about it, but he seems like a really good guy. Full of integrity.
I'm gonna take a break from the Dean campaign for a bit. I don't want to blow my load too soon. Anyway, I have to admit, I like what Kerry has been saying about Haiti the past few days. Very good angle to go at the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine supports Democracies where? The one in Pakistan? Or the ones in Europe who had 70% public opinion polls against the war in Iraq? Or what's shaping up to be only a sorta Islamic theocracy in Iraq?
Saturday, March 06, 2004
How Howard Dean spent at least 20 million dollars in Iowa and lost Part III.
The Iowa Perfect Storm.
This sums up the problem with the entire Dean campaign. The Iowa Perfect Storm was what we called the 3500 or so volunteers who came to Iowa to help on the campaign. I have no idea how much money we wasted on this cluster-fuck, but I can assure you it was a lot. I worked with these people, I know they were great people, but they didn't help the campaign. Rather than a lot of broad support, Dean had supporters who felt that being part of a community is more important than winning elections. It was narrow support that ran very deep. It was also very condescending support. Most supporters I encountered had the attitude of "Screw them if they aren't going to vote for Dean. They are idiots anyway." I think most of the Stormers coming into Iowa for the last weekend expected to go to a few rallys, knock on doors for a couple of hours, then party it up when Dean won in a landslide. By the last week of the campaign, we were running in total catastrophe mode. We knew we were losing, but we had to keep up appearances and we were somehow supposed to keep these thousands of Stormers occupied. We canvassed the city of Ames Iowa five times in the two weeks prior to the caucus. That's a hell of a lot of doorknocking. People were already sick of being bothered by the campaigns, and now some asshole from Texas is knocking at my door?! The Perfect Storm did not help us at all. I don't know if it hurt us, but it sure cost a lot of money. The biggest problem the Dean campaign had is the political ghetto effect. Supporters only talked to other supporters. They only talked to their other young, college educated, affluent friends who all supported Dean. If Dean supporters would have spent less time blogging, and having meetups and basically having political circle jerks about how awesome Governor Dean is, ah fuck it. I'm just being bitter. We ran the best Iowa field campaign ever...to be continued
How Howard Dean spent at least 20 million dollars in Iowa and lost Part II.
The Iowa caucuses are a stupid, undemocratic waste of time.
Don't think this is just sour grapes because my candidate lost, I was saying this the second week I was out there. Do you know what people from states around Iowa call Iowans? Iowegians. I love the way that sounds. Anyway, Iowa sucks. It is cold, it snows all the time, its flat, and most of all, it is extremely boring. There are something like 7 black people living there, and about 23 Hispanics. Its not exactly what you would call a diverse population. Oh, Iowa is a very old state too. I think the average age of a caucus goer was something like 74. Most people have names like Verna, Homer, Fran, Elfreida, and other old-timey sounding names. Every four years, we give a huge amount of power to these white people, who are usually overweight, and no smarter or better educated than residents of any other state. They have huge influence on who will be the nominee of each political party. It is an honor. Instead, all they do is bitch. That's all I heard the whole time I was there. "You guys called me 6 times yesterday, stop calling." "I'm so sick of all the commercials, and all the new people here, I wish they would just leave." Or they would hang up as soon as you called, or slam the door in your face. Now, if it is such an inconvenience to the unrepresentative people of Iowa to be one of the most powerful forces in the nomination battle, we should let someone else do it. But then you'd hear them crying about losing the millions of dollars of revenue the state squeezes out of the campaigns. Seriously, let Nevada hold the first primary. Or Florida. Let a state that looks a little bit like America have some say in the matter. You should have seen how old the people were that we were talking to. We were calling people who were 86, 94, even over 100. One good thing about Iowa though is that the younger people are moving away. So there can only be a few more caucuses held there before they all die out. The mass extinction of the Iowegians. I can't wait. Oh, wait. This has something to do with Dean, I forgot. Dean was not a good candidate for Iowa. They like nice. They are farmers. They want someone who isn't going to cause a scene....to be continued
How Howard Dean spent at least 20 million dollars in Iowa and lost Part I.
Working for the Dean campaign was the best two months of my life. Wait, that's not true. I studied abroad in Amsterdam the summer of my junior year. Those were the best two months of my life. I'm afraid that I will never work with such a great group of people no matter what job I take in the future though. The Dean field team in Iowa was amazing. We had a lot of Wellstone veterans. We had former Nader supporters. We had Bill Bradley supporters working for us, and we had a lot of just plain idealists. The people working for Dean in Iowa weren't trying to get ahead. They weren't political hacks. They didn't just jump on the bandwagon of the guy who they thought would win (Kerry, cough cough). I am most proud of the clean campaign we ran out in Iowa. We ran as positive of a campaign as Edwards, if not more so. When workers from the other campaigns encountered a Dean supporter, they went directly negative. They were all over the place. Dean is a hippy, liberal commie. Dean is meaner and more conservative than Newt Gingrich. Dean is going to take away your Social Security and Medicare. Dean wants to make owning a gun mandatory. Dean is mean. Dean is the worst of McGovern and Mondale combined. This is what the people of Iowa heard everyday for months from the other campaigns. The Gephart campaign was sending out huge, glossy fliers every day trashing Governor Dean. I was proud to work on such a positive campaign, but we should have acknowledged what was going on. Governor Dean should have said, "I'm a bigger man than this, and I am disappointed at the dirty tactics my competitors are using." Or, we should have gone really negative really early. The thing people forget about Dean in Iowa is that we were running a fourth place campaign up until the end of November. We were expecting a Gephart, Kerry, Edwards, Dean finish, then we would mop the floor with them in New Hampshire. Unfortunately, two months before the caucus, we were first or second in the polls, so we had to make a strong stand in Iowa. The stupid expectations game. I saw first-hand the moves that Edward and Kerry were making in the last few weeks prior to the caucus. I also saw Gephart hemorrhaging support. I didn't believe the polls in the last few weeks before the caucus. I thought Edwards was going to win, with us a close second. We had steady positive movement in our support leading to the caucus. Kerry surprised the hell out of me. His biggest asset though was that his union support actually did something. I'd trade the FireFighters forAFSCME, SEIU, and IUPAT combined, any day of the week, although AFSCME was the least helpful. There were just too many obstacles to overcome though. We had to deal with the negative tactics of the other campaigns. We changed our field plan three times in a two month span. We had to deal with Dean's comments on Canadian TV about the Iowa Caucuses being dominated by special interests, (which is one of the truest statements a politician has ever made). We decided to go negative at the last minute, but then backed off. Perhaps the biggest problem is that we had too much activity, not enough movement. The comparisons to the internet stock bubble are fairly apt. I was a volunteer coordinator for the Dean campaign. I was the liaison to our strongest supporters. Some of them were wonderful, competent, and committed people. Others weren't. I won't go into detail, but some of our volunteers were just a little too overzealous. The simple fact is that they scared the Iowans with their intensity, and some Iowans were put off by our letter writing campaign and our "Iowa Perfect Storm" where Dean supporters flooded the state to knock on doors and make phonecalls. ...to be continued
Treefus
Marijuana is going to be one of the main foci of this blog. Smoking pot is one of the most hypocritical issues we have as a nation. There is no stigma attached whatsoever, unless you are caught. In 2000, Al Gore admitted to smoking hundreds of times. George W. Bush won't disclose his past drug regimen. In the Rock the Vote Debate last year John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean all admitted to smoking weed, yet none of them were willing to take a stand on decriminalization. It just strikes me as so hypocritical that politicians can uphold laws that they broke themselves. Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, is a true hero in this arena. He used to dabble in drinking, weed, even cocaine. Now, he is a world class athlete who uses no drugs and does not even eat processed sugar. He admits that he experimented as a youth, but using drugs had no ill effects on him. Again, it is all about the choices we make. He turned out ok even though he smoked a little reefer, I mean being a governor is nothing to spit at. He, like Senator Edwards and Kerry, and Governor Dean were lucky. They were never caught. What if there is a potential congressman, senator, or even president who is sitting in jail right now for marijuana posession. Danny Goldberg has an excellent chapter about the hypocrisy of the drug war in his book Dispatches from the Culture War: How the Left Lost Teen Spirit. I highly recommend it. He was caught back in the sixties for a minor drug violation. However, he says that if he was prosecuted under today's laws, he would never have had the opportunities to be the success he is today. Don't get me wrong. Drugs are bad. They should be kept away from children. However, I should be able to smoke a joint after a hard days work if I am so inclined. Oh well, I guess I can just eat some more Darvocet, maybe chase it down with some Zoloft and Paxil.
Weed Isn't as Bad as Crack.
Why the DARE program is such a miserable failure. DARE is the program that most fifth or sixth graders go through to tell them that drugs are bad and that if they smoke a joint or drink a beer, they will go to jail and never get a job, and die penniless and alone. DARE does not really differentiate between alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, PCP, acid or any other drug. OK guys, time for another shocker. Weed isn't as bad as crack. I know its controversial to say it, but they aren't even in the same ballpark. I went through the DARE program as a child. In fact, I didn't smoke weed until my senior year of highschool, because I believed that garbage about marijuana being a gateway drug, and that if I smoked pot, I would soon be doing coke and ecstacy and having pre-marital sex and all kinds of awful things could happen. The DARE program teaches fear and shame of drugs. That works great as long as noone you know ever tries drugs. The problem arises though when the first kid gets his hands on a little weed. We are taught that weed is addictive, it will make you violent, you will lose your friends and family if you smoke it, and all kinds of "Reefer Madness" stuff. Then, one of your friends starts smoking, and he doesn't lose his mind. He doesn't rob, rape or kill anyone. He just says that marijuana produces a pleasant feeling, and hey, would you like to try it? OK, so you try pot. You get high, you eat a lot of cookies, you get all giggly, then you take a nap. You think to yourself, "Those bastards lied to me about this drug stuff in DARE. I smoked pot and nothing bad happened to me. They were probably lying about coke and ecstacy too." Wrong! This is the biggest problem in America's youth drug culture. The belief that because adults overstate the dangers of marijuana, they are lying about all of the other drugs too. We as Americans need to have a very honest and painful discussion about the relative dangers of drugs. Marijuana is not good for you. Marijuana makes you lazy, and definitely affects brain activity. Some people prefer sitting at home and getting stoned than going out and living life. There was one truly effective anti-marijuana commercial in the last few years. A kid was sitting in a smoke filled basement and he says something to the effect of, "Yeah, I haven't really done anything for the past few years except smoke pot." That is the biggest danger of marijuana. Letting your life slip by in a haze. Now, back to the example of the kid who smokes pot and does not see any adverse effects. He then starts rolling, or doing coke, or popping pills, or oxycontin, or meth because he does not believe there is any danger in these drugs either. These are bad drugs though. I've seen the damage that they can do to people. By overstating the danger of marijuana, our government is seriously undercutting our attempts at drug prevention for harder drugs. When are we going to have a politician who is willing to seriously talk about marijuana?
Soft Bigotry
Without a doubt, George W. Bush's best line from the 2000 election was "the soft bigotry of low expectations." That alone was enough for me to be willing to vote for Nader rather than Gore. How can a guy be that bad when he is saying such great lines? Our educational system is set up for the lowest common denominator. It rewards mediocrity. It is like a bell-curve. The curriculum is set for the middle fifty percent, those that can't handle it receive extra attention. But, the students who find the studies boring, and beneath them are punished. Self-esteem seems to be the main focus of our educational system. It's great that everyone is special, but some people just aren't as smart as others. We need to be willing to tell children that they are wrong, and explain why. The only thing I see taught in schools are memorization and self-esteem. Even AP and IB classes only deal with memorization. We need to teach more critical thinking in schools. We need to teach students how to read actively. Our best and brightest students aren't challenged, and they don't have the opportunity to refine themselves. They simply learn how to cram prodigious amounts of useless garbage into their brains, which they forget as soon as the exam is over. We also need more real world curricula that can be applied to everyday situations. We should teach students how to balance their checkbooks, general finance, how to cook, how to change a tire, and real sex ed. Education spending should be one of the nation's greatest expenditures. Then that way there are no excuses. Give a child all of the tools they need to be successful, and make sure they are healthy, then that's it. We need more personal responsibility. This is where my libertarian/conservative leaning comes in. Everyone gets to make choices. You can either work hard, be a doctor or lawyer or something, or get a business degree and make good money that way, or you can choose to say "fuck it" and be a loser. However, you shouldn't be doubly punished for being a lazy loser.
I don't know why this software keeps doubling up my posts. I apologize if there are more than one of any given post. Just scroll past it.
All Along the Watchtower.
The Watchtower State. Many anti-tax Republicans hold up an ideal of a watchtower state as their preferred mode of US government. That means we only have an army, fire department, police, etc. Small government is great. I think we should have a modified watchtower state. I want the government as small as possible. I really dislike paying taxes too. I do believe that privatization can save money, in certain instances. However, the biggest failure of most "Conservatives" is to hold up the market as a savior to any problem. There are certain things that just are not going to be profitable, no matter what. Also, there are some things that should not be profitable. Education and healthcare. I like the Horatio Alger, pull yourself up from your bootstraps, American Dream ideal. However, that doesn't work if we don't start from a semi-level playing field. You can only pull yourself up so much if you have the equivalent of a third-grade education and polio. I'm going to fill you older people in on a little secret here. I'm sure you guys once knew it, but forgot. Grade school, and high school are pretty much useless. I don't remember anything about the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and if g is a function of y where