Happy Holidays

Welcome back.

I'm your host, Captain Obvious.

Today I'd like to share a bit of holiday cheer:


Grow up.


Too many people are looking for someone to hand something to them. You have to dig for your diamonds if a sack of them never manages to fall into your lap.

It's not about a handout, it's about a head held high.

Nobody owes you anything.

You have to earn it.

Media fence-sitting and doubletalk on the financial bailouts scandal

I had to make a temporary return from my medical hiatus to point out the hypocrisy and glad-handing going on in the media right now over the financial bailouts scandal. So here we go...

An article over at CNNMoney.com has me livid. Is everyone missing the point? The title of the article is "Be ticked off - but get over it" with the subtitle "You should be angry about the $700 billion plan to save banks. But once the rage subsides, realize that doing nothing would be disastrous."

Wow. Thanks for doing all the thinking for me (us).



The quotes used in the article were the real gems. Below is some analysis of those quotes.


"Taxpayers have every right to be angry because we've gotten into this mess by a combination of irresponsible behavior and lax regulation," -Chris Probyn, chief economist with State Street Global Advisors in Boston.

Lax regulation is far from the problem, and deregulation has absolutely nothing to do with it. If regulation has any role to play it's that regulations are responsible for causing this problem, and said regulations weren't comprehensive enough to account for all the Wall Street shenanigans that were employed to create and propagate this mess. As for the "irresponsible behavior"; a bailout rewards such behavior, it does not punish or prevent it.


"What makes capitalism work is borrowing and lending. The problem, without this bailout, would have been you would have condemned the economy to a period of halting growth at best," -Tom Higgins, chief economist with Payden & Rygel, a Los Angeles-based money management firm.

No. What makes capitalism work is, unsurprisingly, capitalism. Some "Chief Economist" you are, Mr. Higgins. Pouring taxpayer money into failed business structures simply delays the inevitable. Safety nets provide a disincentive for sound business practices; promoting cronyism and future problems in the affected sector. This is similar to what happens when you provide safety nets to an individual that has a severe addiction problem. If you shield them from the consequences of their actions, then the primary impetus for them to make an effort to resolve their addiction is wholly removed. This is also similar to telling someone that owns a "gas-guzzling" vehicle that buying a large gas storage tank and stockpiling gasoline to fuel their existing vehicle is preferable to switching to a newer and more fuel-efficient model. Ridiculous.


"We couldn't just keep applying Band-Aids. We have to have a comprehensive package or we'll just stumble from crisis to crisis. I don't like the bailout. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But it is the better of the two alternatives." -Chris Probyn, chief economist with State Street Global Advisors in Boston.

Well, Mr. Probyn, at least we agree on something. We can't keep applying Band-Aids, which is the primary reason why this bailout is shortsighted. It is a Band-Aid fix in and of itself; and it creates the very scenario under which we "just stumble from crisis to crisis."

The current problems in the financial sector are nothing new. This is, for the most part, a cyclical event that is perpetuated by government interference in the mechanics of (what is supposed to be) our capitalist system of commerce. This is just another in a long line of financial meltdowns that government has helped to create for us, and further interference will ensure that yet another crisis is on the horizon. It's not a question of if, but when, and how soon.

Time Out

This blog will remain dormant for a few more weeks as I recover from a medical condition.

Dissecting Biden's Banter

Special Sunday Edition

"We cannot as a nation stand for four more years of this." -Joe Biden

I couldn't agree more, but I don't think we're referring to quite the same concept.

We cannot as a nation stand for more governance by the hopelessly tainted Democratic and Republican parties.



"You can't change America when you supported George Bush's policies 95% of the time." -Joe Biden

As hard as it is to remember after the present Bush Administration set a new high water mark for bad government; America's problems transcend and long-predate George Bush.



"I have never in my life seen Washington so broken. These times call for a total change in Washington's world view." -Joe Biden

Joe Biden has been neck-deep in Washington's mess for most of his life. It's convenient that he suddenly feels worthy of calling for "a total change in Washington's world view" now that he's a candidate for Vice President. There's a good reason why he's never seen it as broken as it is now; it just keeps getting worse every day.



"These times require more than a good soldier. They require a wise leader." -Joe Biden

Clearly Joe Biden is referring to himself, not Barack Obama, when he refers to a "wise leader"; especially in light of the fact that Joe Biden has said, in the not-too-distant past, that Barack Obama is not ready to lead. It's fitting, then, that Obama mistakenly introduced Biden as "the next President." Obama probably made a Freudian Slip. Much like Dick Cheney is the de facto President today; Joe Biden will undoubtedly be the de facto President in an Obama Administration.

Biden's voting record, not his campaign rhetoric, speaks volumes. He is no friend of the common man. Despite Obama's characterization of him as "working-class" he's nothing of the sort. He's spent nearly his entire life as a politician. Obama is in the same position, and was a lawyer prior to becoming a politician. McCain isn't any better, and his selection of Vice President will undoubtedly be just as terrible.



The only way America will ever witness meaningful change is to vote for third party candidates. There is no incentive for the Democrats or Republicans to change their ways. As long as they can count on the voting public to vote for one or the other they're golden. No matter which you choose; the establishment wins, and you lose.

Chain-link cells with razor wire await those arrested at the Democratic convention

Special Saturday Edition

An industrial warehouse has been filled with chain-link cells topped by razor wire. What's the purpose? This makeshift prison will be filled with protesters and anyone else that may be arrested during the Democratic National Convention.

Yikes.

The makeshift prison, which many compare to the U.S. "Camp X-Ray" prison at Guantanamo Bay, has been nicknamed "Gitmo on the Platte" (after a nearby river) by protesters that expect to be spending some "quality time" there in coming weeks.

A Denver news station showed some video of the complex. A sign read: "Electric stun devices used here."

Each 20-by-20 foot cell will be packed with an unspecified number of detainees. One would assume authorities are refusing to say how many will be put in each cell so people can't do the math and realize how cruel the treatment will be. Last I checked the Right to Assemble didn't necessarily involve packing humans into cages like sardines are packed into cans.

Civil rights groups have asked Denver to allow lawyers to meet with detainees at the facility, but these requests have been denied. Denver authorities will only permit legal counsel to visit clientele within a court setting.

The Democratic Party's Dog Pound is sure to be filled to maximum capacity, and then some, during the August 25-28 convention.

Lights Out: Democrats pull the plug on Capitol Hill

In a spiteful move that's sure to foster a spirit of peace and tranquility in Washington, D.C. the Democrats have pulled the plug on the House of Representatives to avoid discussions, debates, or votes on the subject of offshore drilling. The reason? Nancy Pelosi believes it would send the public a message that might confuse them.

If that's the only criteria necessary to pull the plug on Washington; then why the hell doesn't it happen way more often?!

It's true that offshore drilling won't promote lower gas prices anytime soon, but it's also true that allowing access to vast deposits of oil will get the ball rolling. It's also true that taking action against global warming won't lower global temperatures anytime soon, but for some reason the Democrats don't find that particular fact to be an obstacle.

Before anyone unjustly accuses me of partisan wrangling; I detest both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and consider myself a Libertarian.

Let's hope Congress gets more generous with the power outages on Capitol Hill. It just might save us all countless billions of dollars, and bring the drafting of silly or unconstitutional laws to a grinding halt.

Storied comic duo reunites after over 20 years of separation

Cheech and Chong are back!

The legendary comic duo, long-since apart following a disagreement that led to their split in the 80s, are flying high following the announcement of a joint comedy tour later this year. The former buds have set aside their chronic disagreements and joined forces once again for what is tentatively being billed as the "Light Up America" tour.

This is a rather surprising turn of events. For years it has been said that Richard "Cheech" Marin permanently abandoned the edgy anti-establishment persona that sparked his comic and acting careers. By reuniting for this comedy tour the one question that's surely on every fan's mind is: Does this mean another Cheech and Chong movie is in our future?

Only time will tell.

It's great to see that the two of them have set aside their long-standing feud, and we all look forward to seeing how they riff on the establishment in this new era.

Beijing pollution threatens the health, safety, and performance of athletes at the 2008 Summer Olympics

The pollution in Beijing is graphically illustrated in the picture to the right (click to view full size). While similar residue is fairly common on structures that have existed for long periods of time; it's unknown how long ago that sign was erected. It can be assumed that this particular sign for this particular purpose wasn't constructed very long ago at all. Although not provided here; views of the Beijing skyline also provide irrefutable evidence of dense pollution.

In years past it was part of the Olympic experience for competitors to mingle and embrace the various cultures represented within the Olympic Village. This year, however, things will be different. Many teams do not intend to remain in Beijing any longer than is necessary. Much of Team USA intends to only visit Beijing to check in at the beginning of the games and to compete in their events. Where will they be at other times? Anywhere between 300 and 3000 miles away; training in other parts of China or Asia.

It is unknown if the International Olympic Committee took the issue of pollution into account when it awarded China the honor of hosting this year's Olympic Games. What is clear, though, is that an extraordinary effort is being made to avoid offending China by focusing attention on the pollution issue. Stories such as this one aren't getting much play in the mainstream media, and places like Occasionally Obvious or Offensive Comments are virtually the only source of such news as we quickly approach the August 8, 2008 opening ceremonies.

John McCain and Barack Obama both abandon their supporters in their quest for the elusive swing vote

In the movie Swing Vote, due out this weekend, a New Mexico man (played by Kevin Costner) somehow becomes the deciding factor in an election. Apparently some people aren't aware that this is an implausible premise.

John McCain and Barack Obama have both been operating as if such an outcome is possible. As the primary election has turned to the general election both have been systematically abandoning their base of supporters in an effort to appeal to independent, undecided, and cross-party voters. Their positions on issues have become muddled, and have even changed in many cases. No longer do the Democrats or Republicans stake out clearly-defined political turf, and each no longer stand for a set of clearly-defined values. Each have now virtually merged to become a twisted amalgamation of their former selves, and both parties now clearly favor the "rights" of government or the "rights" of big business over the rights of the people. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have turned into political chameleons--shape-shifters--each altering their appearance either to fit a predetermined schedule, to suit the audience before them, or to reach the stated goals of their behind-the-scenes puppet-masters.

The media has begun to, as expected, trumpet how close this election is becoming. As with prior elections this is nothing more than an institutionalized effort to keep as many people locked into the two-party system as possible, and discourage those that many be thinking of voting for a third-party candidate. It's clear, though, that there is so little difference between John McCain and Barack Obama that questions of what might happen if one or the other gets elected are rendered virtually irrelevant. The only time their differences even enter the equation is when you listen to (and naively believe) the assertions of each team's partisan cheerleaders as they struggle to create a justification for why their candidate should be the one to seize the awesome powers of our out-of-control government. These justifications are self-serving, and only represent each side's desire for self-aggrandizement.

It's clear that the Democrats and Republicans are hopelessly tainted, and it's clear that the two-party system is irretrievably broken. The only solution is for everyone to abandon the system entirely, and for everyone to vote for third-party candidates exclusively. The time has come for the public to stop allowing the "major" parties to push them around. These two parties have zero incentive to clean up their act so long as they can count on you to vote for one or the other each election cycle. It needs to be understood that the "major" parties haven't truly been separate for a long, long time now; they are each two sides of the same coin, and the competition between them is nothing more than an illusion to ease the minds of the unsuspecting and uninformed.

Withdraw your support for the two-party system today, or face an incalculably more difficult tomorrow.

Thanks for being responsible! Now hand over the money!

This is a disaster. The current Congress has raised the national debt ceiling to over $10 trillion, and an unbelievably-large mortgage bailout is in the process of being authorized. What does this mean for you? Another $1000-$1500 tacked onto your share of the national debt.

Many responsible people pinched pennies, worked hard, purchased modest homes, and generally lived within their means. Many irresponsible people spent freely, worked sporadically, purchased homes they couldn't afford, and generally lived beyond their means. Every man, woman, and child in this nation is now poised to foot the bill for the irresponsible actions of the latter group. What's more; every man, woman, and child in this nation is poised to finance the losses of the large financial concerns that authorized the loans. Some try to say that capitalism is the problem, but this isn't capitalism. Capitalism isn't a system whereby businesses reap the profits on easy street, and offload the losses onto someone (or, in this case, everyone) else when the road gets rocky. What we have in this country (and have had for a long, long time now) is a bastardized socialist capitalism, and the powers that be only intend to make things worse for all of us.

When you look around and see the problems we face, just remember: This wasn't caused by capitalism. The powers that be want you to believe that; they want you to rail against capitalism, and they want you to believe that it causes your ills; they want you to demand government action, and they want you to punish one major political party by voting for the other; even though each of the two parties are virtually one and the same. In essence they want you to play right into their hands. Unfortunately the American people quite often does just that; and they do so quietly, happily, willingly, and most certainly unknowingly.

Prelude to Impeachment

Hearings were held today before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the powers of the President, and the abuses perpetrated by the Bush Administration. Naturally the process was tainted by partisan bickering.

While the Democrats (and even a couple Republicans) raised many serious issues; most of the Republicans repeatedly whitewashed, obfuscated, and distracted everyone from the troubling conduct of their Republican President. These apologists took every opportunity to try, in vain, to paint George W. Bush as a meek and benevolent figure; all while taking numerous shots at Democrats. It was a ridiculous and very vivid display of how dysfunctional the two-party system really is.

Bruce Fein, a witness and constitutional scholar, was undoubtedly one of the stars of the show. His performance was impressive, and one would have expected him to get the attention of wayward committee Republicans since he took part in Nixon and Reagan administrations. No such luck; their blinders were clearly on, and they were very busy toeing the party line.

Bob Barr; a former Congressman from Georgia, floor manager of the Clinton impeachment, and 2008 Libertarian Party candidate for President; also made a strong showing. It was surprising to see the level of respect afforded him by his former colleagues on the Judiciary Committee; Republican and Democrat alike. Two Democrats asked him direct questions with favorable undertones, and many committee members seemed fond of Barr. One of the aforementioned Democrats asked him, hypothetically, how a Barr Administration would conduct itself in ways significantly different from the current administration; the other Democrat praised him for being one of the only Republicans to stand up for the Constitution when he himself was a member of the Judiciary Committee.

While impeachment seems to have been precluded by leading congressional Democrats; this hearing was an important step toward resolving serious and outstanding abuse of power issues within the current administration, and preventing them in all future administrations.

The rise and fall of eBay

The online auction house known as "eBay" was one of the few survivors of the dot com bubble burst. Now it, too, may be on the road to defeat. As shareholders dump the company's stock, and sales volume decreases; some are blaming the economy, but are eBay's policies the real culprit?

Fees have apparently increased on the site, and this had led some to coin the term "Feebay." Policies which protect buyers nearly without question (and leave the seller often considered "guilty until proven innocent") are scaring sellers away. Favoritism extended to large corporate storefronts that sell via eBay are decimating the population of small, independent sellers. These factors are quickly making eBay very dissimilar to the company it was for many years.

Many competing online auction houses sprang up in the wake of eBay's initial success, and many are slowly gaining market share as eBay's sellers flee. It's only a matter of time before we learn eBay's eventual fate, but one thing is clear; even if eBay falls like a house of cards the corporate officers that are responsible for knocking it down will float away under the comforting canopy of their golden parachutes.

Stop bullying Iran in an effort to justify another war

"War is something absurd, useless, that nothing can justify." -Louis de Cazenave

"It is a tribute to the humanity of ordinary people that horrible acts must be camouflaged in a thicket of deceptive words like "security," "peace," "freedom," "democracy," the "national interest" in order to justify them." -Howard Zinn

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

"You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride." -General William Tecumseh Sherman, during the Civil War, in a letter to the City of Atlanta

"Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out…and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel ... and in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" — with his mouth." -Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F. Kennedy



As unpopular as the sentiment may be to some: Iran has just as much of a right to utilize the power of the atom to generate electricity as any other civil society.

That said; if they are attempting to foster a clandestine nuclear weapons program, then that is definitely cause for concern. However, backing them into a corner will not facilitate inspections from international nuclear watchdogs; but it may very well facilitate the very interest in nuclear weaponry that's being used as thin justification for pursuing the nation of Iran so doggedly. If you were a small nation facing international pressure and the threat of unprovoked bombing or invasion from the most powerful military in the world; wouldn't it make nuclear weapons seem like a good idea to you, too?

Fact is: It's ridiculous that North Korea purportedly tested a nuclear weapon, and was subsequently rewarded with a lifting of sanctions; but Iran has done no such thing and is being treated as if it has nuclear warheads mounted on top of its medium-range Shaheed-3 missiles.

What's the reason for the difference? Undoubtedly the primary reason is the vast reservoir of oil that lies beneath the Iranian nation, and its unbelievable value in light of current economic conditions.

Resisting the forces of duality

Coke or Pepsi?

It's the simplest of concepts; the idea that essentially every aspect of reality can be reduced to some sort of dual relationship. Computers are based on the notion, for example; as tiny on/off switches represent ones and zeroes, and make programmatic logic possible. So that means duality is a good thing, then, right?

Not exactly.

It's possible to get too much of one member of a pair. You can be too hot or too cold, for example. It's also possible for duality itself to be far too restrictive. A world where Coke and Pepsi were not joined by Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Mountain Dew, A&W Root Beer, and so on would be a boring world indeed; as would a world devoid of all color save black, white, and shades of gray.

So why, then, do we permit our system of government to sink into the clutches of a restrictive duality? Why do we attempt, often in vain, to make complex concepts fit a Left/Right or Democrat/Republican view of the political landscape?

We don't; the situation is forced upon us.

It's promoted by our manner of elections, our history, our psychology, our nation's press, and those that benefit from the current political system. We're led to believe that the electoral equivalent of Coke and Pepsi serves as the only available options; and that Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Mountain Dew, A&W Root Beer, and the others simply do not exist.

It's understandable that the field must be narrowed somehow, but that doesn't mean the field has to be consistently narrowed to two options; and that definitely doesn't mean the field should be down to two options as soon as possible. A system of progressively-stricter requirements should be implemented whereby more viewpoints can be heard early-on, and those that garner minimum levels of support will continue to be heard. Such a system--as applied to presidential debates--would conceivably require ballot access in much of the country (say 25 states) in order to participate in the first debate, and the next debate would retain the ballot access requirement along with the addition of some other limiting factor (I'm not sure if polls are really the best option). All requirements would scale based on timing and how many debates had been held thus far. Alternatives could be provided early-on as well such as: 25 state ballot access OR X% in opinion polls. A graded process would certainly contrast sharply with the fixed requirement of 15% or more in at least 3 national polls that is currently used by the organizers of the televised debates; the "Commission on Presidential Debates." It would undoubtedly do much to restore representative governance to the people of the United States of America.

Barack Obama magazine flap shows an irony deficiency

Thanks for saving me the trouble...

...I couldn't have said it better myself.

The Iraq Distraction

Last month a resurgent Taliban sprung its members and/or supporters from an Afghanistan prison, and now this month the Taliban is launching attacks on US bases. What seems to be left out of the discussion is the role Iraq plays in these brazen attacks.

The events of September 11th, 2001 led to the military operation in Afghanistan with the purported mission of finding Osama Bin Laden and toppling the ruling Taliban regime. Soon after, however, the World Trade Center incident was used as justification to launch an invasion of Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. This maneuver took the focus off of Afghanistan, overextended the US military, and put military personnel on the ground in Afghanistan at greater risk.

Fast forward several years and the reasons why are more readily apparent. The Taliban are capable of launching brazen surprise attacks against US and Afghan positions, and apparently see both as weak enough to not be very fearful of reprisal. Osama Bin Laden remains uncaptured, and the situation on the ground appears to be getting not better; but worse.

At the same time the US economy is bordering on stagnation as gas prices continue to rise and the value of the US Dollar consistently degrades; primarily due to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent every day to sustain a hungry US war machine. While the practice of war for profit may enrich a few--and serve as the health of the state--it definitely results in the suffering of millions. The time to begin winding down these ill-conceived military misadventures passed years ago.

It's time to ignore the "richest nation in the world" mantra that's used to vilify the American public and make us second-class citizens in our own country; it's time to open our eyes to the problems, the poverty, and the precarious infrastructure that's all around us; it's time to return to building and strengthening our own nation before concerning ourselves with the needs of others; it's time to put our money back in our pockets; it's time for the investigations to begin; it's time to bring our soldiers home.

Who's going to bail out the US Treasury?

It's easy for Congress to spend money so freely; primarily because it's not their money. Spending gives them an opportunity to look like they're doing something useful. The reality, unfortunately, is that--more often than not--they're just making things worse.

Take the current crop of bail-outs, for example...

In return for making risky loans, risky investments, risky decisions, and engaging in risky business in the mortgage industry; Congress is considering or has already implemented huge safety nets to save everyone from the consequences. While this is presented as help for homeowners the reality is that much of this "assistance" will arrive in the pockets of Wall Street insiders and large investment firms. It seems that "capitalism" in the United States has devolved into a system where businesses are permitted to keep their profits, but all losses are shouldered by the US Taxpayer.

This is fatally flawed.

In true capitalism a business or business practice fails or succeeds on its own merits according to market forces. When a failure occurs it initiates a "realignment" and stronger competitors rise from the ashes of the failed sector. In the quasi-socialist capitalism-in-name-only system that's developed in the United States over the past century we now have a situation whereby market failures are prevented by the federal government, and failed sectors are propped up by taxpayer monies. This results in weak and barely-functioning zombie industries where capitalism would've created strong and robust new ways of doing business if only the market were left to its own devices.

So I'd like to know: Who's going to bail out the US Treasury? When everything fails because of decades of gross financial mismanagement in Washington, D.C. who's going to come to our aid? Will the manipulators in the finance sector withdraw a portion of their ill-gotten wealth from bank accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands and rescue us? Will the defense contractors that bilk our government daily ride to our aid? Of course not. They'll be sipping tropical drinks on their private islands, trying to think of another country to loot and pillage, while the United States of America lists sharply and then sinks under the waves of history.

Breaking free of defeatists and defeatism

"The victorious warrior wins first, and then goes to war; the defeated warrior goes to war first, and then seeks to win." -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

What Sun Tzu was trying to say is: The expectation of a loss encourages losing behavior.

The same holds true in politics, but with a significant difference: A candidate's confidence alone is not enough; the voters must also be confident. This is especially true today.

It's clear--even to many former ultra-partisans--that the two-party system in the United States of America is fatally flawed, and in dire need of revision. The "two major parties" have gravitated so far to the center that their boundaries are indistinguishable; making it very difficult to distinguish one from the other. There are, of course, certain wedge issues that are used to try and highlight their differences; but when it comes to the substance of a political party--how and in what manner to govern--the two may as well drop any pretense of being different and merge.

Throughout our nation's history new and important ideas have been presented by alternative political parties that sprang up to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day. For many years the same process has been recurring; but the establishment has taken steps to squelch opposing viewpoints via the debate commission, campaign finance regulation, obtuse ballot access requirements, and a general stranglehold on the minds of the citizenry. The politics of fear and the manipulation of team spirit has pitted Americans against themselves; transforming the political process into a spectacle reminiscent of the Super Bowl where only two teams are on the field. The public accepts this without understanding that, unlike the Super Bowl, no political playoffs justified the exclusion of other competitors; they were simply left unseen as a matter of course, and in a manner reminiscent of the divine right of kings doctrine. It's time for a change. It's time to vote based on ideals; based on substance; based on hope; and not based on pride, party, or personality.

I encourage everyone to study each and every candidate in the race with an open mind and vote only for the one you identify with the most. Look beyond mere rhetoric to the substance of policy positions and political maneuverings. Choose not based on what you're told, but based on what you believe. It's the only way, and it's how the system was intended to function.

The anatomy of a flip-flop

"Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice."

The terms "flip-flop," "flip-flopping," and "flip-flopper" were seemingly coined during the 2004 presidential campaign to be used as pejoratives against then-Democratic nominee John Kerry and his policies. Four years later we find that these terms are still being used, but now many seem to have forgotten what they were intended to mean.

A "flip-flop" isn't simply the act of changing one's mind.

A "flip-flop" isn't the use of new information to reconsider a previously-held position, or to discover a new position.

A "flip-flop" is the premeditated adoption of a new position solely for political expediency; often (but not always) with the intention of returning to the previously-held position later.

A "flip-flop" is the premeditated repudiation of a former position solely for political expediency; often (but not always) with the intention of returning to the previously-held position later.

Now that we're clear on what a "flip-flop" is; it's very clear that Barack Obama has been engaging in such. Today, in particular, he reneged on a long-standing promise to vote against any FISA bill that included immunity for telecommunications companies; and he voted today not only to grant this immunity, but also to allow the government to spy on American citizens with only the flimsiest of justifications. It is expected that many of his supporters will defect following his decision to vote in favor of the FISA bill.

Other subject matter that Barack Obama has flip-flopped about includes:

• Taxes
  
• The Iraq War
  
• Gun Control
  
• Campaign Finance
  
• US-Israeli Policy
  
• Abortion
  
• Whether or not Iran is a threat
  
• The significance of wearing a flag pin
  
• Corrupt or controversial associates (Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, etc.)
  

Unfortunately John McCain isn't any better. On most of the issues that matter; he was wrong to begin with. No flip-flopping was required; although he has been known to engage in flip-flopping throughout this campaign.

The natural underpinnings of infidelity

As the media pays far too much attention to every tawdry detail involved in the dalliances of Peter Cook and Alex Rodriguez; I'd like to take a moment to discuss the subject in abstract. I'll start by making a blatant and controversial statement:

Infidelity is fairly normal.

"The evidence is overwhelming that monogamy isn't natural," says David Barash, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington. He reached this conclusion after studying the behavior of humans and animals. Both men and women engage in infidelity; although men tend to hold a higher percentage in published statistics. Some studies indicate that, as women spend more time in the workplace and become financially successful, they tend to behave far more like men with respect to infidelity. The advent of the internet has served as a convenient enabler; allowing both men and women to more easily find and vet potential partners.

Infidelity has existed throughout history. In fact some believe that the emotion of jealousy was originally developed as a defense mechanism against infidelity long before it was ever associated with anything else. Not all historical "infidelity" could be accurately defined as such, though. Polyamory was also involved, and was forced upon us naturally. This was originally a situation whereby prehistoric men would go out to hunt, and not all would survive the adventure. Their widows would then invariably require another source of love and protection. In this way the acceptance of multiple mates became a natural and perhaps eventually instinctual part of male psychology. This trend continued for thousands of years as warfare--first between tribes, and later between nations--killed off large numbers of men; resulting in large numbers of widows or severe male:female ratio disparities. Monogamy, therefore, is nothing more than a difficult (but not impossible) attempt at deprogramming to fit modern societal expectations; a feat which becomes less and less achievable if a relationship does not border on absolute perfection.

Back tomorrow...

It's been a whirlwind weekend. I'll be back tomorrow with some hard-hitting original commentary.

Celebrating the independence of the United States of America

Over two centuries ago a group of learned men finally decided enough was enough, and set out to disobey King George III in order to free the American colonies from the clutches of tyranny. They risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor because they believed the stakes were too high to simply do nothing. For far too long they had watched their fellow citizens suffer under the combined weight of an unfair monetary system, crippling taxation, unresponsive government, and oppressive authoritarian power. It was time for a change; it was time for a Great Experiment; it was time to give birth to a constitutional republic; a new nation called the United States of America.

Let us celebrate their courage, enjoy the freedoms they bequeathed to us; and endeavor to restore the light of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

The Cult of Obama

It's almost unexplainable; or at least it appears to be. Barack Obama changes his positions (or straddles the fence) from day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month (as does John McCain for that matter). Obama has a gift for provocative scripted oration, but clearly develops a severe lack of clarity whenever he's forced to think and speak for himself. The media loves him, and anyone that has any knowledge of psychology can recognize an institutionalized effort to promote him. The media trumpets factoids like "he has raised more money than any presidential candidate in history" or "he has raised twice as much money as McCain" without any details given. Obama himself trumpets the notion that he receives his campaign funds in small amounts from people that care about his campaign, but that's only partially true: Half or more of Obama's windfall is coming from large donations, and from the usual suspects. On top of all this are rumors that Obama is not a natural-born American, and that he's unable to produce a valid birth certificate. I've seen the purported evidence, and it's shocking; especially when you consider that Obama's rumor-busting web page displays the same document this evidence refers to. Add to the list of questionable items Obama's cadre of crooked, self-interested, and well-connected cronies, too.

So what's going on? What's the deal? Whatever happened to investigative journalism? Why aren't these issues being examined? Why is Obama's campaign so well-funded? Why was there an organized effort to have Republicans switch parties to vote for Obama in the primaries? Why was Hillary Clinton, a candidate clearly being groomed by the powers that be, elbowed out of the way in favor of Obama?

I have some theories:

1. Obama is a plant. McCain has hinted that he intends to win the election in the last 48 hours of the campaign. Perhaps this means they're going to break the news that Obama has been disqualified at the 11th hour; perhaps with a side of racial unrest for good measure. If the riots are bad enough they may even get an opportunity to activate some of the more nefarious provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

2. Obama is a plant. They intend to let him win by putting him up against a candidate the Republicans clearly don't like, and bring up the birth certificate thing after the election is over to either: (a) Make his Vice President win by default OR (b) Try to turn public opinion against the Constitution by saying "Look at that. You voted for him. He's your President. Now the only reason that's being questioned is because of some 'silly' rule in that 'silly old document' that we don't want to have to deal with anymore."

3. Obama genuinely wants to win, but will be at the mercy of the special interests and his handlers via blackmail for the entirety of his term; contrary to what he's been saying.

Some of this depends on the candidates' selections for Vice President, and what happens at the upcoming conventions. We'll have to wait and see.

Update: It appears some of the purported evidence may not have been as strong as it seemed at first glance, but that doesn't mean this issue is resolved. There are still lingering questions surrounding the legitimacy of Barack Obama's citizenship status, and he will need to provide irrefutable proof that he meets the natural-born citizen constitutional requirement if he would like for these questions to go away.

Back tomorrow...

It's been a whirlwind weekend. I'll be back tomorrow with some hard-hitting original commentary.

Supreme Court tenuously upholds the individual right to keep and bear arms

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, albeit a tenuous one. While historic considering the high court has never been forced to make such a definitive ruling on the Second Amendment before; the decision was far from crystal clear, and it left open a cornucopia of means by which firearms can still be restricted.

While gun control enthusiasts have long been comforted by the notion that the Second Amendment applied only to "the Militia"; this notion was inconsistent with the historical context in which the Bill of Rights was crafted. The militia language was meant to be a side note; a mere commentary--without any force of law--to ensure that the contemporary reader of the day would understand that the citizen militias would not be disbanded in favor of a centrally-controlled national army. This was intended to assure the citizens of the new republic that the rights they had just struggled to secure would not be trampled upon by their new form of government.

Fast forward over two-hundred years and that's exactly what's happening. The federal government is grabbing power and imposing itself upon the populace at an accelerated rate. While the high court's decision lends some small degree of support to the rights of We The People; it serves as only one of many stepping stones we need to traverse on the road to taking back this country and restoring the respect for and spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Are you a member of the club?

A report is making the rounds in the news today that the number of people in the world's millionaire's club (as measured in US Dollars) has passed the 10 million mark. Some of the international members of this club likely joined recently because of the weakened dollar increasing the number of dollars they have, relatively speaking.

Mo' money, mo' problems?

I have to wonder how many of these millionaires gathered their fortunes legitimately through hard work and determination, and how many gathered their fortunes illegitimately via fraud, corruption, and public harm. I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of these 10 million souls are guilty of very serious offenses. You know what they say though: The scum rises to the top.

Incidentally the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates this season, and/or their spouses, are millionaires. I find Barack Obama's wealth in particular to be interesting considering his campaign's portrayal of him as a down-to-Earth champion of the common man. I have to wonder just how in touch he truly is with the day-to-day struggles of the average working American citizen.

Are you a member of the club?

George Carlin: 1937-2008

On Sunday the world lost a brilliant comedian, social commentator, philosopher, and friend. George Carlin died of heart failure at the age of 71.

Long before the advent of blogs, much less Occasionally Obvious or Offensive Comments, George Carlin was sharing occasionally obvious or offensive comments of his own. He was always one of my favorite comedians, if not the favorite. Carlin's ability to unabashedly lift society's veil to reveal the underlying truths was priceless. His ability to make people laugh was undeniable. He will truly be missed.

Although there has been an outpouring of fond remembrance and mourning for Carlin, including a piece by Kevin Smith; Carlin himself wouldn't want us to feel sad about his passing, and as he once said: "...you just say 'Gee, he was just here a minute ago'; that's how I want to be remembered."

When allowing the country to be harmed becomes politically convenient

Many of us have heard people talking about it over the past several years. They'll say things like "9/11 was an inside job" or "The Bush Administration was complicit in the attack". Their reasoning being based on the notion that the aftermath conveniently allowed Bush, Cheney, and their cronies to carry out the "neoconservative" agenda. Whether you believe such things or not; it's a fairly-convincing argument.

Apparently the same can now be said about the actions of the Democratic Party since the 2006 mid-term elections. That year the Democrats were swept to an electoral victory on a platform of cleaning up Bush's mess and the Washington corruption that surrounded it. Sounds vaguely familiar to what we're hearing this time around, no? Unfortunately virtually none of what was promised has been accomplished. The Democrats have held plenty of hearings, but little or no substantive progress has been made. As mentioned in this article (and others like it) the Democrats appear to be intentionally allowing the venom that the Bush Administration has injected into the nation to fully run its course; presumably for their own benefit at the ballot box this year. This is unbelievable, and indicative of what's truly wrong with federal politics. As was said in the aforementioned article: "When the Founding Fathers put impeachment into the Constitution, they probably would have never envisioned that it would be used (or in this case, not be used) the way it has. Of course, I don't think they envisioned that politics would become a career for so many, and that doing one's duty for the nation would take a back seat to getting reelected."

This reminds me of the cries of "No taxation without representation" during the American Revolution. It's clear that--when they're not representing lobbyists and campaign contributors--our nation's "leaders" are representing themselves before the people get any consideration. This is reprehensible to say the least. Politicians should be doing what's best for the country, period; not what's best for their re-election odds.

Update: As mentioned in this article Charlie Black, a top adviser to John McCain's campaign, told Fortune Magazine that another terrorist attack on the United States between now and Election Day would benefit McCain.

Credit where credit is due

While much of the media unequivocally credited Barack Obama yesterday with being "the first presidential candidate to reject public funding since the creation of the post-Watergate campaign finance system" this assertion isn't entirely accurate. Some news outlets got it right: He's the first Democrat or Republican to do so.

The candidates of the Libertarian Party have taken a principled stand against public campaign funds, and have consistently refused to accept them. Libertarians feel that it's unethical to criticize government spending (and call for smaller government) while simultaneously accepting campaign financing. Libertarians also reject the idea that campaigns should be financed from the nation's Treasury; believing, instead, that a campaign should rise or fall on its own merits.

Unfortunately this means the Libertarians--already in a disadvantageous position--force themselves to face an even steeper electoral ascent. The Democrats and Republicans have intentionally created a system of election laws--at both the federal and state levels--that protect the failing two-party system while making it vastly more difficult for so-called "third parties" to compete with them. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known by the "McCain-Feingold" monicker, made this system even more restrictive in 2002. Despite being challenged by libertarian-leaning groups, among others, these laws were narrowly upheld by the Supreme Court. In addition, the Democrats and Republicans directly control the Commission on Presidential Debates; a bipartisan organization headed by Democrat and Republican lobbyists that control who can (and cannot) participate in the debates. This has had the consistent effect of ensuring that only a Democrat and a Republican are permitted to debate. The CPD is notorious for increasing or ignoring the qualification requirements anytime an alternative candidate nears or reaches these requirements, and the requirements are fundamentally flawed because they're based primarily on unscientific opinion polling.

When combined with the media's general disinterest in alternative presidential candidates (unless they make for a novel news piece, like a cat running for president) it's very difficult for new perspectives to be heard or evaluated by the electorate. Then, when and if they do receive attention, it's usually only to highlight their low polling numbers and inability to win. So long as legitimate candidates of truly national political parties are logically marginalized rather than given fair and impartial consideration; this trend will undoubtedly continue.

As George Washington once said: "The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

We're, unfortunately, failing to listen to George Washington's warning. We're letting party politics rule us, when we should be ruling ourselves.

Paging Doctor God

It's midnight and your daughter is wailing in pain. The noise--combined with the anxiety you feel--makes it impossible to sleep. You wonder if she'll get better, and go to comfort her. The thought of taking her to the doctor never even crosses your mind. Instead of reaching for medicine (or a phone) you pick her bible up off the nightstand; and begin to recite chapter and verse. In the ensuing days or weeks you repeat this ritual. Then one day your daughter dies. In this scenario you're a firm adherent to a religious teaching that believes only in the healing power of God, and an unwavering distrust of modern medicine.

If you're looking for a miracle, you need to dial 911.

As more and more child deaths are linked directly to faith-based refusals to seek medical care the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee moves ever-closer to the brink. It's increasingly difficult for society to tolerate religious beliefs that neglect or harm children. Denying medical care to a child on religious grounds could soon join child sacrifice, Muslim gang-rape, and spiritual marriages of young girls as a socially-unacceptable religious practice.

Religious zealots need to be open to the fact that worldly manifestations of divine providence may be the best (and only) means of receiving it. I'm reminded of the joke/short story about the guy caught in a flood that refuses various forms of rescue--such as a boat and a helicopter--while awaiting God's aid, and drowns in the process; ignoring the fact that the boat and helicopter may have been God's worldly attempts at delivering salvation. As Benjamin Franklin once said in Poor Richard's Almanack: "God helps those that help themselves."

Blind faith in religion has led to untold wars and deaths over the centuries. It's great to see people holding strong beliefs; but these beliefs must be tempered by reality, and must not bring harm to others.

Hell is surely freezing over

For once (besides during the 2000 campaign when he claimed he was against nation building) I actually agree with George W. Bush.

I never thought I'd be saying that.

As I highlighted in yesterday's article; offshore drilling is necessary if we would like to reduce the percentage of the nation's daily oil consumption that is satisfied by imports. Today this sentiment was echoed by President Bush.

While, for the foreseeable future, it will not be possible to completely eliminate oil imports; reducing them is vital. As alternative energy sources are put into practical use the consumption of oil in the United States will be reduced overall. Perhaps, several decades from now, very little oil will be burned in any way.

No blood mud for oil

An article in today's Washington Post cites John McCain's support for lifting the ban on offshore oil exploration in the United States, and cites Barack Obama's opposition to the same. While I agree that it's very important for this country to tap its own natural resources in an effort to combat soaring prices and foreign influence; that does not necessarily mean I support John McCain or his overall policy positions. The same holds true with Barack Obama, except here it may be worse: It seems he would like to be able to have his cake, and eat it too.

Barack Obama repeatedly cites the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and simultaneously opposes exploitation of domestic reserves. He has broad faith in alternative energy to bridge the gap; believing we can run our automobiles on something other than fossil fuels (and we will, eventually). What he doesn't seem to be accounting for is that--even in a best-case scenario--it tends to take 15, 20, or more years for the majority of the nation's automotive fleet to be replaced by newer models. So, in the meantime, if we're not getting our "black gold" domestically; then where's it going to come from? Unsurprisingly it will be the only source that's not domestic; foreign.

This logical disconnect extends even further. As cheap oil becomes harder to obtain tensions will undoubtedly mount in oil-rich regions like the Middle East. Even as efficiency standards continue to improve, and alternative electricity generation methods are brought online; development (and the demand increases that go with it) will ensure that the current rate of global consumption (and the current rate at which global consumption increases) will remain essentially unchanged. At this rate we may see cheap oil disappear in as few as 30 years, and all sources of oil vanish in as few as 60 years.

So environmentalists and war protesters--groups that are often inextricably linked--will have to decide whether they want "No blood for oil", or "No mud for oil". They'll have to decide whether they're willing to accept drill holes, and potential harm to wildlife; or bomb craters, and potential harm to human life. It's becoming increasingly apparent that they can't have both. Several nations--including the United States--have long implied that they're willing to fight over natural resources, and whenever this has been said oil was undoubtedly what was being referred to. We've hitched our entire civilization onto this seemingly-unlimited limited resource, and until we've figured out something else to hitch it to--and made the transition--we have to be willing to do whatever it takes to prevent civilization from disintegrating before the transition is complete.

Stop Bitchin' Out

Many people have heard of it in press conferences, news reports, pop culture, or perhaps in their neighborhoods. Its pervasive use of a perverse exaggeration of the facts has enlisted entire segments of the population to serve as passive accomplices to crime. It destroys the future in an attempt to avenge the past; all while safeguarding and implicitly encouraging the illicit activities of criminals.

It's the Stop Snitchin' "movement".

Stop Snitchin'--based on the time-honored concept of "honor among thieves"--has gone mainstream. While core supporters claim that they're only against informants snitching in return for leniency (especially when lying or exaggerating)--an idea that is somewhat understandable for most people--this point has been slowly forgotten over the years, and the campaign has been transformed into an insurance policy against witnesses to crime. Dissatisfaction with the difficulties (and illegalities) of jury tampering "forced" both small criminal elements and large criminal organizations to resort to this form of indirect sociological warfare to achieve the same end result. Much as with Friday's article about the unintended consequences of using lies to wage the drug war; so, too, are other drug war tactics--especially the ones used by law enforcement in the high-crime areas where gangs already thrive--counted among the primary reasons for why the Stop Snitchin' campaign was able to convince the wider populace to accept the gangland code of silence.

The enforcement of victimless crimes like drug use requires a paradigm shift in how law enforcement operates so that police can locate and punish offenders. This differs greatly from how true crimes--where the violation is usually readily-apparent--are dealt with. Instead of a 911 call or a body in the street; uncovering drug activity requires police to be intrusive, nosy, and in a consistently oppressive or hostile stance; differing significantly from the helpful and often friendly position police were once in. This has led some to mock "...to protect and serve" by rephrasing it as "...to subjugate and enslave". It is in this volatile environment that Stop Snitchin' was able to flourish and gain acceptance beyond the confines of the criminal underground in which it was originally conceived.

However, regardless of the impression some may have of law enforcement, we cannot allow order to succumb to chaos. If the Stop Snitchin' "movement" (and the lawlessness that it encourages) is not resolved by positive social change it could soon be too late. Laws can be changed relatively quickly, but it could take generations to undo widespread sociological counter-programming.

So, in the meantime, all I can say to counter the Stop Snitchin' "movement" is: Stop Bitchin' Out. Don't let fear, paranoia, or what amounts to peer pressure convince you to allow criminals to freely ply their trade; because being some criminal's bitch isn't how you earn respect, regardless of how many rappers or gang members say otherwise. As one rapper said: it's all about record sales; which means he's the music industry's bitch, and supports the Stop Snitchin' concept primarily for his own personal gain. There's no respect in that, either.

Here's some lyrics to drive home the point:
  You were just comin' up, but your dreams they got doused
  Some cop--a lil' o'zealous--sent ya to the big house
  But don't let some crooked cops, or some silly drug laws
  Become your weak justification to put justice on pause
  Don't teach this fearful paranoia to some innocent kids
  So when and if they grow up someday, and they life's on the skids
  They'd pay to get their shit back; even though it is hot
  And be content to not see nothin' if their buddies get shot
  Slappin' some skin with their homies; just like ev'rything's great
  Even when one's the perpetrator of their kid sister's rape
  They might keep sayin' Stop Snitchin', but I say Stop Bitchin' Out
  Your odds of being murdered increase on the Stop Snitchin' route
  The gangs and rappers support it, but they don't pay the cost
  So stop this stupid situation before the future's lost
  It ain't about reputation, but about neighborhoods
  So if ya think a crime's committed; time to give up the goods

Big business's love affair with big government

The Reuters headline read "McCain seen as best choice for economy" when it could've just as easily referred to Obama considering the headline was directly reflecting the opinion of Wall Street insiders. A couple of paragraphs into the article they reveal why this is true: "Wall Street is backing McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama with cold, hard cash."

So which is it? Which candidate commands the support of Wall Street insiders? Which candidate is "seen as [the] best choice for the economy"?

Why, both, of course.

It doesn't really matter to Wall Street insiders which candidate wins the election, because no matter which way it goes; they will win. Both candidates are unable--regardless of how hard they may try--to completely escape the influences of big business, regardless of what each might keep saying to the contrary. Sure, they vary in a few ways. Their percentages of this and that might differ sometimes, too. What matters to big business, though, is that both candidates are identical where it matters: They're both dedicated to big government, and that means that when big business pulls the strings; McCain or Obama will begin to dance.

As Michael Cloud once said: "The problem isn't the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse."

The federal government is too big, too intrusive, too expensive, and too far outside its constitutional bounds. Big business will seek to ensure that its henchmen are in control so long as this remains true. By doing so they ensure that the gravy train will continue to make its scheduled stops wherever (and whenever) they want; and that no meddlesome reformers can slow, stop, or reverse the financial emasculation of America and its citizenry.

The unanticipated consequences of lying to the nation's youth

I've seen a couple stories over the past few days about how a minor deviation in the way a drunk driving education program is normally presented to high school students caused some problems at a certain high school in California. To make a long story short: The students weren't aware that it was an instructional exercise. They were convinced that some of their friends really were dead, and used their cell phones to spread the bad news. Once the students were finally told (up to several hours later) what was really going on they were angry at those in authority (teachers, law enforcement officers, and school administrators) for lying to them. This immediately reminded me of a related subject: The long history of using the national stage as a platform to disseminate lies about the effects of marijuana.

In the 1990s the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the White House Office of Drug Control Policy introduced an anti-drug campaign that specifically targeted marijuana. Rather than focusing on horror stories and fantasies of how marijuana caused insanity, violence, birth defects, and transformation of the user into a bat (as had been tried in the past); the rhetoric of this campaign was based on the premise that reducing the use of marijuana would reduce the use of other "harder" drugs. The era of marijuana as a so-called "Gateway Drug" was born.

Besides the fact that many considered the premise (that marijuana is just a starting point on a user's journey through a life of drug experimentation) to be just one of many myths surrounding the substance, there was another factor that was probably never taken into official consideration: If marijuana truly is a "Gateway Drug" then the official strategy (lies) for initially handling the "problem" of marijuana use may have contributed to the emergence of this pattern.

For decades those in positions of authority or public trust engaged in the official use of lies about marijuana, and told fanciful tales of all the uncontrollable and unmitigated harm that would be unleashed by even a mere puff of the stuff. When someone actually used it, however, they were made immediately aware of just how ridiculous all those claims they'd heard over the years really were (especially the one about turning into a bat). I'm sure that, especially for the nation's youth, this led them to suspect that much of what they had heard about other substances was also untrue. This undoubtedly led to further drug experimentation.

What does this mean? It means, assuming the "Gateway Drug" myth is true, it was likely a scenario that was encouraged by the government's previous drug control activities. When statistics were compiled this came full circle as the statistics were then used in yet another effort to twist the facts ever so slightly to serve the purposes of the drug control apparatus. This is standard operating procedure when it comes to government. Government tends to create more problems than it solves, and then uses the problems it created as justification to expand its meddling while wasting vast sums of taxpayer money in the process.

Left and Lefter

I don't like labels much at all. They promote the oversimplification and generalization of everything. Unless they're on household chemicals, then failure to read is at your own peril. Among the labels I like the least: "Left" and "Right" in politics. Yet it seems that these labels are appropriate at times, and this seems to be one of those occasions. Over the past few months we've gotten hints, but over the past few weeks more of the details have finally emerged. It now seems almost official, but I'll ask you anyway: Is John McCain left-of-center?

Once the media's centrist-Republican darling (years ago, that is), McCain clearly has been drifting further away from the party he claims to represent ever since. Much of his party has definitely taken notice. It's well-known that the Republican Party has a strong internal faction distraught over Bush's pillaging of core Republican values, but a similar faction has bemoaned McCain's own shortcomings for years now; and this faction's ranks have swelled dramatically since the start of the current election cycle.

There's definitely a palpable sense among the general population, regardless of party affiliation (or lack thereof), that neither of the two major party candidates are acceptable choices this time around. This isn't much of a surprise considering the "lesser of two evils" sentiment that seems to have cropped up in at least the past 3 or 4 presidential elections, but this year it's different. Many people are actually (finally!) participating in the process, and won't be bullied into accepting one of two unacceptable choices while "[paying] no attention to the man behind the curtain". Much of the public feels as if McCain and Obama are all but identical, and the candidates' attempts to emphasize their differences are ringing hollow among the wider electorate.

Ron Paul's relatively-successful campaign may be indicative of some of this. People are hungry for a different kind of politics. Barack Obama has definitely been capitalizing on this desire for societal change by referring to it ad nauseum during his speeches, but a growing number of people understand that the change they yearn for will not soon come from the election of either a Democrat or a Republican to the presidency. Unfortunately, the two-party system is irretrievably broken. Even more unfortunate: We'll continue to be stuck with it so long as the average American treats each election like the championship game of a professional sport, and not the important civic responsibility that it is.

So while the lemmings on both sides will be out cheering habitually for their favorite "team" from now until Election Day--replete with their pennants, beer hats, giant foam hands, and taxpayer-funded pep rallies--informed voters that are loyal only to Team America (and the ideals for which they stand) will be ignoring those detestable partisan labels; and voting their conscience instead.

Icahn the Terrible, and his effort to eviscerate Yahoo

Much like the essence of yesterday's Spike Lee post, Carl Icahn's recent fight with Yahoo is also an exercise in holding up a magnifying glass to manufactured issues that only he (and the coalition he manages to build with his passionate rhetoric) cares about; but both Lee and Icahn forgot to, for the sake of full disclosure, mention that the issues they place under the magnifying glass are smaller than they appear.

It's amazing how someone like Carl Icahn can become an expert on the inner workings of a company the moment he owns more than 1% of the company's stock. What's his secret? Did he spend part of his mountain of cash on Kevin Trudeau's Mega Memory, and actually manage to get some sort of benefit from it? Was it Focus Factor? Was it one of those learn-while-you-sleep programs? Whatever the case may be; he now believes he can apply his experience with tobacco conglomerates, real estate, airlines, water softeners, cosmetics, and hotels to an internet company known as Yahoo.

What Icahn refuses to acknowledge (or, worse, isn't aware of) is that Yahoo is far different from the vast majority of the companies he has past experience with. Yahoo provides more of a service than a product, and this service relies heavily on brand identity and customer loyalty; both of which would die a painful death at the hands of Microsoft. Yahoo would undoubtedly be gutted, and if this happened Google's position would only be enhanced as Yahoo's users flocked there--rather than to Microsoft--for searches and other services.

I'm sure Jerry Yang is well aware of this, and is not interested in seeing the company he co-founded in 1994 (and built over more than a decade) thrown under the bus to placate an opportunistic investor. Yang may actually be more loyal to Yahoo's customer base than he is to the machinations of corporate raiders, and I think Icahn is rendered vicious by this proverbial thorn in his paw.

Icahn has apparently also never heard of a poison pill, as he's been complaining about such provisions in Yahoo's internal policies as "inappropriate". Makes one wonder how this man ever managed to gather billions of dollars in the first place. This is surely either feigned ignorance, or the equivalent of a poker bluff.

Can Spike Leeave well enough alone?

After seeing some story repeatedly over the past several days about some meaningless tiff between Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood regarding a perceived dearth of diversity in Eastwood's new film Flags of our Fathers I have to ask: Are you kidding me?

Spike clearly suffers from publicity withdrawal from time to time, and becomes willing to use whatever means necessary to obtain his fix: Even if that means perpetuating racist ideologies, or suing to try and prevent others from using the name "Spike". I suppose when his manufactured controversies involve the perpetuation of racism it isn't really much of a surprise; since every time he stirs up a racial controversy people start paying attention to him again. Personally I just want it (and, perhaps, him) to go away. Many people just want to see racism finally die out, but it will take far longer than it should so long as some people keep it on life support for the advancement of their personal agendas or personal ambitions. I won't reward those that support Spike's publicity addiction by linking to their articles, and that's why there are no links to be found in this post.

As for Spike's latest race-related criticism publicity stunt: A quick and painless 5 minutes of web-based research reveals that the percentage of black soldiers among deployments to Iwo Jima during World War II was never more than 8%, and was often far less than that. I suppose Spike was offended wasn't satisfied, then, to see diversity of skin tone flash by only briefly in the form of an extra or two in the background? Or perhaps a photograph at the end? Who's to say that guy with a distinctive tan over there didn't cover things just fine by himself? Does Spike Lee not care about brown people?

It's sad that the man seems to see things in black and white when shades of gray are probably more appropriate. It's clear, though, that representation is very important to Spike Lee--regardless of how small the currently-measured sample size may be of those being represented. I hope we'll soon hear that he hasn't let his Obama t-shirt get in the way of him speaking out again on this important issue by condemning the consistent exclusion of third party presidential candidates from the presidential debates.

Or maybe he'll just take Clint's advice and "Shut his face" after all.