Wednesday, December 26, 2007

VOTE (correctly) OR DIE!!!

Alonzo doesn't vote.
He had better watch out. Diddy's about.
"Vote or Die!" Diddy cries,
"Vote, or you'll be seein' my .45!"

So Alonzo reads,
and he inquires.
The boy's inspired!
He runs off! Votes Green!

Diddy CAPS his ass....

...shrugs Diddy, "He wasted his vote."


Why do you bother voting? Because an election is supposed to reflect the will of the people?

Why do you vote, when your one vote won't swing an election? Is it because you've realized the aggregate of votes that do swing elections is the sum of hundreds, thousands or millions of individual decisions to cast one vote?

Too often, I've heard someone express support for Ron Paul's platform declare, "but he has no chance". I like to respond, "If so, that's your fault". For the sake of maintaining electability, the front runners in both parties stood idly by as our civil liberties were eviscerated, hell was unleashed Iraq, and our economy slipped closer and closer to recession. Why reinforce this notion of electability? If your vote reflects your will, why vote for someone who's betrayed your principals over someone who's resolutely defended them? Why not join the aggregate of individual voters that demand principled politics? Voting for "the lesser of two evils" does not improve matters, it simply slows down the rate at which they get worse.

Ron Paul's supporters understand this. Dr. Paul has gone from being an obscure congressman from Texas to raising more money in one day than anyone else has in the history of American politics. Literally thousands of people have traveled across the country to attend his rallies, and his support base springs from all over the political spectrum. They're voting on principal, they're voting for real change. And in a couple months, they may well have redefined what it means to be "electable".

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Pro-socialized health care, Pro-Ron Paul?

Mike Mejia argues that despite Ron Paul's opposition to socialized health care, voting for him would best improve the chances of seeing that goal realized.

Ron Paul: The Pragmatic Choice


Sunday, November 11, 2007

The latest from the police state: Privacy Shmrivacy!

Definition Changing for People's Privacy

The government is literally spying on us:

The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

The government's response?

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

They are not even lying about it anymore. Why bother? Hardly anyone is paying attention. Britney Spears' train-wreck of a life is more important.The World Series is more important. Halo 3 is more important. Oh! The Superbowl's coming up too! went my thoughts, when I ran across this amazing bit of standup: Comedian Bill Hicks on the JFK Assassination.

His closing is downright poetic, and echoes my sentiments exactly.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Jewish Republicans against Ron Paul?

A few weeks ago, the Republican Jewish Coalition refused to allow Ron Paul speak at their "Victory 2008 Republican Jewish Coalition Candidates Forum". The reason: He opposes aid to Israel.

Does this amount to being anti-Israel? Seeing as how this "U.S. aid" is really just a subsidy for its own defense industry, not at all. So says Israeli libertarian Boris Karpa. Check it out.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Beating the drums for Gulf War 3

Democrats worry Bush's setting up a war with Iran. And for good reason; this administration has tried to use "diplomacy" to trigger a war at least once before.

No joke. In Fall of 2002, Bush made an appearance at the U.N. demanding Iraq be pressured to shutdown its (non-existent) WMD program.

U.N. Resolution 1441 was passed to give Saddam Hussein's Iraq one last chance to comply with its "disarmament obligations", set by previous resolutions. To the neocon's dismay, Hussein obliged and completely cooperated with the inspection process, as stated in these U.N. press releases:


Quote from the release:
Since the Commission's arrival in Iraq, it had conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites, he continued, including industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case had he seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.


Quote from the release:
Given the media attention to mobile facilities, he said that even before UNMOVIC began its inspections in November 2002, the Commission had received information about such facilities and the inspectors were looking for sites where such mobile units could be hooked up for support services. Upon his request, the Iraqi side had presented some information about mobile systems they possessed. As evident in his report, neither the information presented nor pictures given to the inspectors by the Iraqi side matched the description that had recently been made available to them, as well as to the media, by the United States. At UNMOVIC, he could not, of course, make a proper evaluation of the depicted vehicles on the basis of published material alone.

When the U.N. inspectors failed to find a single non-existent weapon of mass destruction, Bush decided to invade and ordered the inspectors out. Repeat:

- He gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to comply
- Saddam complied
- Bush invaded anyway.

So much for diplomacy!

I wrote "to the neocon's dismay" above because the Bush administration never intended to deal with Iraq peacefully. They intended 1441 to be the trigger that would justify their invasion. i.e. They fully expected Saddam to violate 1441 by rebuffing the U.N. inspectors, thus justifying the invasion.

So I'm a bit wary when this administration calls the sanctions against Iran a "pathway of diplomacy". This exchange between a reporter and the State Department's spokesman isn't encouraging either:
QUESTION: So in other words, this is a way to avert war, the way you look at it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not going to -- it is a way to prevent Iran from obtaining the technologies that would allow it to build a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: And a way to prevent the U.S. from launching military action, which would be unpopular.

MR. MCCORMACK: It is exactly as I said.

"It is exactly as I said": Translation: "No, we are not trying to avert war..."

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Ron Paul raises more than $5 million in third quarter

Ron Paul has raised $5,080,000 dollars this quarter, which is already earning him a LOT of media attention. Highlights:

From Reason Magazine:

So he's raised about $8.2 million and spent $2.9 million, a burn rate of around 35 percent. That's a little lower than the burn rate for the frontrunning candidates

From the NY Times' The Caucus:

On Tuesday, The Hotline, a political newsletter, speculated, “If Paul outraises Huckabee, won’t we need a new evaluation of ‘dark horse?’ ”

With Mike Huckabee expected to report receipts of about $1 million, Mr. Benton thinks a re-evaluation is in order.

In terms of money in the bank, Mr. Benton said, “we are going to be amongst the very top. I would argue that we’ve stepped into the first tier.”

From Reuters:

Democratic candidates generally have been raising more than their Republican counterparts, but Paul's performance puts him in the same financial territory as two prominent Democrats -- the $5.2 million raised by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and $7 million raised by former Sen. John Edwards.

And check out this amusing bit in Lew Rockwell's blog.


Thursday, September 27, 2007

Update: There really aren't any gays in Iran... least not from their point of view, Justin Raimondo points out.

The last three links in his post are 3 parts of a documentary about "the most vulnerable civil rights movement in the world": The Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization. Check it out.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Ahmadinejad of Kazakhstan

I usually find bigotry funny. Absurdity is at the root of all humor, and a ranting bigot is nothing if not absurd.

Case in point: Here's an excerpt from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's controversial talk at Columbia University:

In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country.


I read that quote, looked at a picture of the guy, and realized he reminded me of another famous anti-semitic homophob.

Then I giggled.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Democrats are useless

Back in 2006, after details of Bush's illegal wiretapping program were leaked, there wasn't any hope of stopping the President from playing dictator. The Republicans controlled Congress and had no problem watching Bush hack away at our rights. Nevertheless, Russ Feingold (one of the only Democrats with backbone) decided to at least attempt to hold the President accountable. He introduced a resolution to censure the President for authorizing the program (i.e. a formal declaration that the Senate disapproves of the President's actions). His fellow Democrats immediately shied away from the resolution, decrying it a waste of time.

Flashforward to today. The Democrats now control Congress, voted into power by a country tired of the war and sick of being lied to. So what have they delivered to their constituents after nearly a year in power? A measure condemning (censuring) for an ad that exposes the latest lies about the war. Instead of getting us out of Iraq and putting an end to the false propaganda, they've decided to spend their time tacitly endorse both. Pathetic.