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.