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.