-endcycle-

A little less hypocrisy would be nice.

2009-12-15T08:20:00.000-05:00

Disclaimer:
I'm a fan of the idea of everyone in this country having health care as a basic human right.

Part of the health care debate that's been raging on has been whether or not to have government-run healthcare for the general populace. The Republican party (and some "moderate" Democrats) have been decrying the idea, saying it's socializing healthcare and stealing from Medicare and whatever other scare phrases they can think of to avoid it.

News flash: MEDICARE. IS. A. GOVERNMENT. RUN. HEALTHCARE. SERVICE.

Now, I'm going to skip the pros and cons of the whole thing for this post, and focus instead on the following: if those Republicans and "moderate" Democrats REALLY are so anti-government-run healthcare, they should be railing against Medicare. They should be SCREAMING about it the way they do about the concept of insuring the poor and young. But... they won't. Ever. Because we can't treat old people badly!! Who will take care of them?? (you can actually read that as: "they vote in overwhelming proportion for us, let's avoid screwing with that, mmmkay?")

Doesn't ANYONE notice this hypocrisy?

I wrote a letter to the editor...

2009-12-13T11:05:00.001-05:00

I have never written to a newspaper or news site about their content until now. Huffington Post has been posting idiotic medical stories lately - and the last one, about homeopathy, was my last straw.

The article in question is here, entitled "Nanopharmacology at its best"
No, seriously.

Here's a good snippet for you -

Homeopathic medicines are made through a specific pharmacological process of dilution and vigorous shaking. However, when skeptics say that there is nothing but water in homeopathic medicine, they are proving their ignorance, despite the incredible arrogance in which they make these assertions.

Allow me to expand on that -
They make homeopathic medicines by taking substances and diluting them, and then shaking them.

Seriously. That's the entire process. It works on the water retaining a "memory" of chemical properties. OH HEY and guess what, the water you drink, by this method, has fish poop in it. Oh, and we peed in it. At some point.

IF THESE THINGS WORKED, DOCTORS WOULD USE THEM, AND PHARMACOLOGICAL COMPANIES WOULD CO-OPT THEM AND SELL THEM.
Jesus people.

So here's the letter I wrote to info@huffingtonpost.com - I wish more people would do the same.

----

I love the Huffington Post. It's one of the first 4 or 5 webpages I first open when I'm wasting time at work, in fact. :)

That said, I'm rapidly losing my will to open the page. The false medical stories you spread are dangerous, at best. Today, there was a homeopathy article claiming the same tired scam lies that have made the "alternative medicine" snake-oil salespeople billions this year. You want to rail against wasteful spending? THAT'S where you go. The antivaccination, alternative med, and homeopathy communities kill people while callously preying on the public's gullible nature about all things "natural".

Please show more skepticism when posting those stories.

For more information, check out-
http://whatstheharm.net/

I am also posting this letter at http://endcycle.blogspot.com - thank you for your attention.

(EDITED TO FIX "CO-OP" vs "CO-OPT". Because I'm a moron sometimes. Okay? I'm going to go cry in the corner now, Internet. HAPPY?)

On idiocy

2009-12-04T10:08:00.000-05:00

Sarah Palin.

Do I need to continue?
Oh? Okay... in no particular order:

Michelle Malkin.
Michelle Bachmann.
Bill Donohue.
Sean Hannity.

The list can go on forever... unfortunately. These are all people who espouse idiocy as a virtue. I'm not talking about their own ideas or positions (which are in some cases stunningly horrid). I'm referring to how they canonize "good hard-working american joes" and decry "expert opinion" on topics from evolution to global warming to economic theory.

There are people who spend their entire career working on information. These people - doctors, researchers, theorists, etcetera - are brilliant in general and in some cases revolutionary and creative as well. They learn everything they can about their field of study and try to push it farther and farther. In short, these are the people who KNOW what they're talking about when they talk. They publish papers and go on lecture tours facing critical reception at all times. Their peer groups are built around the concept of tearing each other down. As soon as a scientist publishes a paper, he is going to get attacked from every single peer in his specialty, with each person trying to find cracks and problems in the posited ideas. The group feeds off of this, and the concepts which survive are stronger and more thorough in the end.

This sometimes grueling and ego-destroying process is absolutely necessary in modern science and academia, yet it's precisely this process which is exploited by the idiocy-mongers in our midst. The catch-phrase I hear most is "so-called experts"... as in "the so-called experts used to say eating eggs was BAD for you and now it's GOOD for you? How can you trust anything they say? How do we know in 3 years they won't come back and say 'whoops guys, sorry, we were wrong about global warming'?"

The worst part isn't just hearing them say it - it's hearing people BELIEVE it. The conservative idiocracy is doing its best to bring intelligence down in this country. Sloganeering and anger have all but replaced the back-and-forth dialog in this country. It's gotten to a point where anyone wanting to have a nuanced conversation is simply shouted over until they give up - and it's becoming a problem not just for liberals but also for conservatives.

The Republican party has become a total mess. The party itself contains people with diverse opinions and points of view. Economic conservatives vie for space with religious fundamentalists and governmental minimalists. Only a few years ago, in the 90's, these groups were considered to be equally "republican" in nature. The Bush administration (GH, not GW) was very inclusive of these groups to a point where it was almost as inclusive as Obama's administration has been.

Now, however, the same idiocracy is shouting down anyone in their party who dares NOT toe the line. Unless you pass the litmus tests of being "conservative enough" (IE: GOD GUNS COUNTRY), you're not going to have any chance of making it into a national office. It's a shame, too - there are republicans out there with VERY good, VERY nuanced ideas who understand how science and reality work, but they're being shouted down and have no chance of getting through the primaries in a national election.

Still, I can't think of an effective way to combat this trend... except through better slogans, of course. Shouting louder than the competition with shorter and more effective advertisements, and the like. But what does that solve? Nothing. I don't honestly think there really IS much of a solution out there at this point. Maybe it'll solve itself - the Republicans might self-destruct and in their place a better party might emerge.

Though I think that the more likely scenario is that this country will become a theocracy of sorts, led by Christian Extremists who have begun to sound just like the "Muslim extremists" they trumpet on and on about. We're already on our way - replace God with Allah in Bush's speeches and they begin to sound suspiciously like Ahmadinejad speeches.

I, personally, will not vote Republican until this mess is cleared up - and as someone who HAS many times voted Republican (INCLUDING for GW Bush), it's hard to do this. I hate to limit my choice to the Democratic party, because let's face it - there are a LOT of morons on that side too, and a lot of people who I would never, ever vote for (Hi Senator Pelosi, what up?).

124th Skeptic's Circle is up!

2009-11-20T08:32:00.000-05:00

Click here to get to the Circle!

Beyond the Short Coat has done an awesome job compiling the latest group of links together, and there are some REALLY interesting reads to be had from the post.... including (and no, I'm not just saying this to get you to go there) a link between big boobs and IQ.

Yeah.

Seriously. I clicked. :)

Burning bridges

2009-11-17T13:58:00.001-05:00

I recently posted on my Facebook something akin to the following:
If you seriously aren't vaccinating your kids for any reason OTHER than a legitimate doctor-ordered reason such being severely immuno-compromised, remove yourself from my friends list. Don't bother commenting, just go away.

I was fed-up with hearing things about people being scared about the various side-effects. I was frustrated by the sudden influx of news posts talking about conspiracies related to the h1n1 vaccine. I was sick and tired, specifically, of one person on my list whose thoughts on everything from 9/11 and the moon landing to vaccines had just gone way over the top... and so I posted what turned out to be the start of an incredibly inflammatory mess of a discussion.

It went from bad to worse in a hurry, with name-calling and seriously raised tempers and even a couple of physical threats. People, it turns out, can be very, very passionate about this. More so than I expected, to be honest... And it brought to light, for me, just how badly the skeptical community is doing in terms of getting our voices heard and getting real, verifiable information in the hands of the people who need it the most - PARENTS.

The anti-vax movement has it very easy. They don't NEED to use facts. They can use impressions, anecdotes, and vague assertions. They simply need to say things like "we don't know everything about these vaccines" and spark fears into parents heads who might not otherwise understand the science behind how this stuff works. They KNOW they're winning, and are more and more emboldened every day. The skeptical movement, on the other hand, is stuck within the confines of scientific language.

To their "How do we KNOW it's safe??" our only answers are to show statistics and probability. They bring doubt - and without bringing what any layperson would consider a solid argument, we can't fight it. We just can't.

What we can do, however, is show the definitive harm of NOT getting your kids vaccinated. We should be taking the measles outbreaks in this country and publicizing the hell out of them. We should show the polio victims in Africa. We should be running with the "THIS KILLS CHILDREN" angle. We should be taking immuno-compromised kids and getting them on the air to explain how herd immunity works.

Most importantly, we need to inflate the rhetoric. Make it so that a parent who DOESN'T vaccinate his or her child is ostracized. Point out the dangers that the parent puts other kids in.

Except... there's another thing. The tears of the parents who speak out for the anti-vaccine movement are real. All of them. They all have been through some sort of very real hell with their own children, even if the cause isn't what they think it is. As such, we still need to show compassion and care and a direct willingness to FIND answers - instead of just saying "hey, we are pretty sure the vaccine didn't cause this disease", say instead "we're now looking to find WHY you're having these issues. Can we get your cooperation to try to find the causes?" Co-opt their grief. Make it OURS. Dilute it, and give it a realistic outlet - and maybe some of the anti-vax movement will start to realize that the science community that's involved isn't just cold and impersonal facts and figures spouted by people in white coats, but also people who care about the kids involved and WANT to find the answers.

I get truly sad when I think about kids that are directly impacted by this debate over fear.

obligatory health care debate post.

2009-11-07T14:15:00.000-05:00

The current health care system in America is, for lack of better term, borked. We all know it - sure, if you have money and / or good insurance, you can take advantage of pretty decent coverage and the quality of your care overall will be second to none in the world.

But that's not the whole story. Insurance companies are in it to make a profit. That's THEIR JOB. There's nothing wrong, at ALL, in my mind, with a business making any kind of profit they want to. The problem for me is that the way an insurance company has to make a profit is, by definition, at the cost of money AND the health of their customers.

An insurance company has at its core the obligation to cover its customers for the care which they need over time. To cover this care, they charge premiums which pay for administrative costs (salaries, infrastructure) and medical costs (doctors, drugs, etc). This is fine and good - until you start looking at what happens when the insurance companies have to make a profit. In order to make that profit, they have to cover mainly healthy people. To ensure that this is the case, they have a couple of escape clauses - lifetime limits and pre-existing condition clauses.

When a patient hits a lifetime limit- in other words, has spent the absolute maximum an insurance company is willing to pay, they're cut off. A patient whose life depends on a lifetime supply of fairly expensive drugs, such as an AIDS/HIV patient, can hit that maximum rapidly. And then what? Find another company? That's the rub - the patient CAN'T find another company because insurance companies will NOT cover people who are already sick with a pre-existing condition. I can't blame them - they'd be out of business rapidly if they actually covered people who were sick effectively. In order to stay in business, they HAVE to act like they do.

The problem here really boils down to this: providing medical care is NOT a for-profit venture. When it is, it becomes dangerous to the people who most need it. Is the solution a publicly-run system? I don't think it entirely is. I think that there IS a place for privately-held insurance, but I also think that having coverage guaranteed to all by the government makes sense as well.

My employer pays ludicrous sums of money for employee health coverage, and the employees chip in on family coverage and pay in entirety for dental and optical coverage. The total cost per year rolls quickly into thousands per year - and as a percentage of total compensation, it's getting ugly. According to our HR guy, health care as a percentage of compensation has risen from under 20% per employee to almost 35% per in the last 10 years alone, and the numbers are rising rapidly while things overall coverage levels are in the decline and deductibles are on the rise.

A public, BASIC health coverage system which would cover things like prescriptions, wellness visits, trauma care, and ongoing health concerns (cancer, etc) would be something I'd be happy to pay higher taxes for. Knowing that these things are covered no matter what would be a relief- not only for me but also or all those people who can't afford insurance OR WORSE have already been disallowed by pre-existing conditions or lifetime limits.

Having additional insurance available from private companies to cover non-necessary health issues such as abortion, plastic surgery, "life coaching", etcetera, would be a great for-profit operation which legitimately COULD be run without public detriment.

Of course, all of these things are somewhat moot without a way to truly combat the spiraling costs of healthcare itself while still providing for innovation and research. My friend Sean brought some very interesting suggestions to the table recently in an email - from modernizing the information infrastructure to the creation of base clinics instead of multiple private practices. While there might be a bit of loss of the personal touch from doctors, the efficiency improvements should not only save money but also lives. The ability to go see a doctor when you need to without having to wait for your own personal physician (which you could still do if you'd like with private insurance!) could allow people who otherwise can't necessarily make their schedules fit their doctors due to work find the care they, or their children, need.

And then there's the other problem - politics. There is no way any level of effective and common sense reform will pass the congress any time soon. Democrats are badly led (WTF Pelosi? Do you have ANY idea how bad you are at this?) and Republicans are not doing an effective job at bringing alternative ideas to the table. Worse, the Democrats aren't even showing any sort of balls. They have a MAJORITY. They DON'T need 60 votes- they have their 50 in the senate. That's a majority. Bring it to the floor. If a filibuster happens (and it would rapidly), this is THE time to bring the "Nuclear Option" to bear- a majority vote which would end the filibuster and force legislation to be voted on by a simple majority.

Unfortunately, the same Democrats who don't have the balls to bring effective legislative change to this process are the same ones who won't have the balls to bring the filibuster to a close.

As an aside- This blog post was written on an Apple MacBook while sitting at a coffeeshop with my iPhone on the table and a fleece hoodie over my shoulders. I might implode from my trend-whoreness.

On Iran, fads, and dying for a cause.

2009-06-22T12:54:00.000-04:00

I've been saying for a while that turning your icon green on Twitter is a stupid thing. It really is, in my mind- it's like putting a ribbon on your car, or wearing a lapel pin. It only means something to the other people with green icons. When do you change it back to your regular colors? What are you doing, besides turning your icon green, that would actually make a difference to the people dying in Iran right now? They're dying for a cause, and you're sitting there thinking that your green icon (which they don't see because they're NOT following you, buddy) makes some kind of impact.

The only impact a green icon has made for me is that it's harder to tell who's posting what. I mean, I could see that (as my brother pointed out) seeing a greenified icon might make an Iranian American feel nice if he happens to be following you, but that guy's worried right now about his friends and relatives and probably couldn't give a damn about your show of solidarity. It's nice, but it's not enough.

This weekend, I was talking with my brothers about the revolution. The problem I saw, inherently, was that the revolution was to protest the loss / theft of an election for someone who ideologically is not ANY different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at all. Mir-Hossein Mousavi was selected by the Iranian "Supreme Leader" along with 4 other candidates (including Ahmadinejad) to run for president of the country. The country itself is actually run by the "Supreme Leader", one Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The president is more of a figurehead, and wields SOME power but only at the pleasure of the big guy. It honestly doesn't matter who the guy is at all - and honestly, there are revolutions in Iran every 15-20 years anyway, always with the same result. Of course, now Mr. Mousavi is changing his stance on some things and fitting himself into the revolutionary mold, but who knows how genuine that really is?

SO I was doing some thinking last night about the situation. There IS a difference here, in this revolution, versus the revolutions for power that we've seen cyclically all over the Middle East. The difference here is that the knowledge held by the electorate is much higher than it used to be. I've talked before about the internet being the great equalizer- that once countries had populations who realized that they had complete access to all the information they might want, then the populations would force a true democratization of their government. Honestly, at this point it doesn't actually matter WHO the president is or will be.

I'm realizing that it's NOT about who got the election stolen or even if it WAS stolen. I think, from what I can see, that the current revolutionary aspect is entirely about the government's reaction to the questions about the election. You can't just stifle information when a populace is used to having that access. It's a very destabilizing notion.

What will the outcome be? Pfft. No one knows. Probably there will be no difference in 2 years, regardless of the course of events... but MAYBE.. just maybe, there will be enough of an event to make a permanent change toward a more secular and intelligent middle east, whether in Iran or another country where the young men and women are inspired by the sequence of events unfolding on every media outlet from Twitter to Fox News to Al-Jazeera. MAYBE we'll see a moderate Middle East emerge, where countries look to Jordan as examples of co-existence, and MAYBE we'll see a ratcheting-down of religious and dogmatic persecutions which result in the killings of innocent men, women, and children in the name of an imaginary deity.

Will I be greenifying my icon? Nah. But am I sitting here hoping to see that the people who CAN make a difference actually do? Yes. Absolutely.

You're kidding.

2009-04-02T08:50:00.001-04:00

REALLY. A measles outbreak. In 2009.

Awesome.

Vaccines save lives. Antivaxxers kill children.

2009-03-31T08:50:00.000-04:00

So this guy at the Huffington Post wrote a killer column about why vaccines are awesome and great and get the kids vaccinated and blah blah blah and I was really happy about it while reading it, because YAY! Someone gets it at the HuffPost! It's about time! After reading JFK Jr's psuedo-science crap and hearing all about The Secret and all sorts of other metaphysical crap from what I otherwise think is an intelligent site, it's nice to see that there's some actual reality in there somewhere.

Then I read the comments.
And my heart sank.

Typical comments included:

"NO ONE has the right to decide for another parent whether or not to vaccinate a child. Forcing a medical procedure on anyone is abhorrent and can not be tolerated in a nation that touts freedom like the United States."

Dear sir: Go fuck yourself. Take your non-immune child, and go fuck yourself. Preferably with something sharp. Stop hurting the ability of our populace to control the spread of diseases like mumps. Hell, maybe if your kid gets the measles you'll get it... but I doubt it.

"Save these vaccinations for those who really need them.
You are supposed to get sick from time to time.
This is how your body learns how to defend itself later in life."

Dude.
Seriously? Are you KIDDING me?? So... injecting a dead version of rubella to prevent me from contracting it down the road is bad? I'm supposed to hopefully survive rubella unscathed in order to receive immunity? Seriously? You really, really really want me to put my kids through that, too? Go fuck yourself, you short sighted twit.

"Now, you probably can't tell that I'm actually on the fence about this issue. Certainly vaccines are beneficial to the population as a whole, and I continue to vaccinate my children except when the vaccines still contain thimerasol."

Pay close attention please: GO FUCK YOURSELF. Jesus christ, you goddamned mouthbreather, PAY ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE. Study after study has shown CONCLUSIVELY that thimerasol had NOTHING to do with ANY effect on a child. NOTHING. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. We're talking MULTINATIONAL FUCKING SURVEYS of huge bodies of evidence here versus a discredited single study of less than 20 kids which was shown CONCLUSIVELY to have been completely made up out of whole cloth.
Let's repeat this, just in case google's paying attention: THIMERASOL IS NOT A DANGER TO YOUR KIDS. Heck, it's also NOT included in any current vaccines - with the exception of some flu vaccines, from my understanding, and even THEN it's such a trace amount as to be literally harmless even if you were to be injected with a vat of the goddamned vaccines.

"and don't forget that the rate of autism may not be rising at all. in the past it has been misdiagnosed. people thought autistic kids were "just slow" or "weird" at the high-functioning end of the spectrum, and those with more severe cases were diagnosed with other disorders. The increasing profile of autism has caused an increase in diagnoses. also as the rate of children going without vaccinations has more than doubled, the rate of autism hasn't slowed a bit. jacob dickerman is right on, parents of autistic children (which whom i sympathize) point fingers at vaccines to aid in their coping with tragedy and offset their (misplaced, yet understandable) sense of guilt."

GO FU... oh. never mind, you seem to get it.

I had to stop reading after a while. The stupid... it burns....

Frickin' TEXAS.

2009-03-30T11:29:00.002-04:00

Son of a bitch.

Raids on LEGAL pot dispensaries will end!

2009-02-27T15:42:00.002-05:00

From MSNBC comes the news that the raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in states where they're legal are coming to an end.
It's about frickin' time. I wonder if the next step will be for California to allow taxation of the dispensaries - if that happens, and other states start seeing the revenues... could be a domino effect.

/fingers crossed.

I KNEW I lost a blog around here somewhere....

2009-02-05T13:36:00.021-05:00

Hey look, a blog post! :)
To tell the truth, I was more than a bit burned out after the election was finally over. Huge relief and all that jazz. I just never really bothered thinking about blogging much after that... sent a few links to friends, popped some stuff on Facebook, whatever. Still... I missed it a bunch, in a way... so here I am.

A couple of quick things to post -
Holy crap I'm glad Obama won - exactly for this reason right here. She's pretty much toast. I hate to say it so crassly, but I also hate my backspace key. Pancreatic cancer really, really sucks. It's a very deadly cancer that has a very low 5-year survival rate. For an incredible reading experience about it, check out the blog and health reports of Randy Pausch, a the author of "the Last Lecture". Here's hoping Obama picks someone interesting... and preferably without so many tax issues.

Speaking of which, what the hell is going on there?? I thought he knew how to vet his candidates. Well whatever... at least we got to hear Obama admit he was wrong about something. I actually can't remember another president doing that in my lifetime about something happening as a current event. Sure, GW admitted in his last press conference that he MIGHT have made a FEW mistakes... but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm also pretty happy about the initial symbolic gestures - the torture reforms, the changes to the FOIFA request processes, etc. I'm a lot less happy about the stimulus packages though... I think they're a huge waste of money and time. I think that if you want to do anything, you should slow the hell down and take a really hard look at things. Stop bailing out companies and processes that don't work. Take a significant portion of the "bailout" and instead of using it for refurbishments of pre-existing structures and roads, use it toward the energy policies of this country.

Help to string a better power grid. Throw tax incentives that MEAN something to people that generate a portion of their own power. Fix the more fragile points of the grid that could potentially cause huge blackouts (remember the one what, 5 years ago, that took out most of the midwest and NY? That can still happen). Take another portion and help to run fiber around the country and provide very cheap broadband access to everyone who wants it. Throwing money in that direction keeps it IN this country and also is a true investment in the future of our communities. The stimulus packages being rammed through congress right now are just a frighteningly disorganized mass of "hey let's spend here!! OH and HERE!!! and... OH THERE TOO!!!!" It's almost like a frantic shopping spree, and the speed at which it's moving reminds me a LOT of the Patriot Act's progress through congress.

Oh, and there's this: The republicans suck at what they're doing. Period. You'd think they'd wake up and smell the absolute smack in the face they were just dealt and perhaps come up with some innovative ideas - instead, they just bitch and moan and say "NOT ENOUGH TAX CUTS" and don't bring up any real ideas. Talk about disappointing, guys. You can do better than this...

This is gonna be an interesting time to be alive, I think. :)

New Skeptic Circle up at Ferret's Cage

2008-11-06T16:57:00.001-05:00

There's a new Skeptic's Circle up at Ferret's Cage. Go check it out.

I love the tagline on his site - "The blog of an exceptionally intelligent 15 year old atheist with far too much time on his hands."

Didn't we ALL think we were exceptionally intelligent at 15? And now, looking back at it, don't we all realize what stunningly stupid things we did (and somehow survived) despite that intelligence?

(I am NOT saying that he isn't stunningly intelligent, but.... you know, 15.... :)

So that's that, then.

2008-11-05T11:16:00.000-05:00

Things Jeremy's happy with:

1: Obama. Nice margin, decisive, blah blah blah.
2: Medical marijuana in Michigan / up to one ounce decriminalized in Massachusetts- both good steps.
3: Abortion bans defeated in a few states
4: Washington state allows physician-assisted suicide
5: Nice pickups for democrats in the senate - and while not technically "filibuster-proof", I think that some Senate Republicans will start voting Democrat in some ways after this last election, or at least doing their absolute best to not look like they're trying to force gridlock via procedural technicalities. A lot of them are up for re-election in 2 years, and I think they smell what's on the wind.
6: McCain's concession speech - where the hell was that guy recently?? I finally saw the McCain I liked in 2000 last night. Excellent speech, and it worked brilliantly with-
7: Obama's acceptance speech. He was sufficiently badass. One of the single best political moments I've ever been witness to.
8: Stem cell research approved in Michigan.

What Jeremy's unhappy with:
1: Gay marriage bans in Arizona and Florida passed, and prop 8 looks likely to pass as well. This is the first time I can remember that a right granted by the state might be taken away from a group.
2: Ted Stevens got re-elected??? WTF Alaska??? Seriously?
3: A ban in Arkansas on allowing unmarried couples to adopt or act as foster parents.

President Elect Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-05T00:35:00.000-05:00

Wow.

A few thoughts, since it's late and I'm near dead tired.

A: Where the hell was that McCain a few weeks ago? Brilliant concession speech. Delivered beautifully. It's a shame his crowd was filled with such schmucks.

B: Barack's speech was beyond incredible. I have personally never witnessed oratory like that. He's certainly set the bar very, very high for himself.

C: I remarked to Meg earlier that I've witnessed my share of historic moments - but this is the first TRULY positive historic moment that I've been around for since the fall of communism.

D: I thought before that this was kind of a big deal to African Americans - if Obama could win, that is... I didn't realize that it really was THAT BIG. To see Jesse Jackson with real tears in a crowd, to hear a prominent african american senator on MSNBC become speechless... it's really that huge.

This... is wild.

2008-11-04T15:45:00.001-05:00

Why is it that "voting day" isn't a federal holiday?

.... whatever.

I am Jeremy the Network Administrator - and THIS I believe.

2008-10-30T12:31:00.000-04:00

I'm a hard working American from Toledo, OH. I live in close proximity to working class people. I own a house with a fence. I have 2 kids who both go to public schools and can smile on cue and a pet. I vote. I pay taxes. I mow my lawn and rake my leaves and clean my gutters.

I'm from the same city as Joe the Plumber. I grew up not even 2 miles away from where he asked Obama to spell out his tax plan and its effects on his purchase of a plumbing company. I make not much more money than Joe does, and a whole lot less than the hypothetical company would.

Joe the Plumber and other hard working, "average Americans", seem to be pretty easy to define.
They believe in their Christ.
They believe that abortion is murder.
They believe that Muslims are a hateful group.
They believe that gay people marrying will destroy the "sanctity of marriage".
They believe that the terrorists will come to their town one day.
They believe that their party is the real party of America.
They believe that drug users should be jailed.
They believe that this nation was founded on Christian values.

Me? This American... well, I'm a bit different, I guess.
I believe in no gods.
I believe in a woman's right to choose abortion.
I believe in the fact that the 'founding fathers' of this country went to great pains to separate the church from the state.
I believe consenting adults should be allowed the lifestyle and legal benefits of marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.
I believe that an individual should be allowed to take any drug they want as long as it does not infringe on the basic rights of other humans.
I believe that this country needs less fear and xenophobia in our daily lives.
I believe that policy decisions should be made with real science and information coming first, instead of policy crafting the science.
I believe that the last 28 years of presidents have destroyed the dignity of the office, culminating in one of the worst administrations to ever occupy the White House.

Am I less of an American because of those beliefs? Some would say so. All I'd need to do is move to a big city like New York, and I may as well never look at an American flag ever again, right?

This is getting old.

A farmer in Minnesota is no less or more of an American than I am. I work harder than most of my coworkers - because it's MY WORK ETHIC. I choose to work my ass off because I want to provide the best possible life for my kids, and yet SOMEHOW, because I don't work with pipes or factory machinery or the soil, because I work with information in an office, because I don't believe in god, because I choose to believe that we CAN be a decent country that treats everyone with fairness regardless of personal beliefs and attractions, because I believe that a woman should always have the final say over her own body, because I believe that the best parts of our country ARE involved in the upper echelons of academia and science- because of all of these things, I am somehow less of an American to people like Sarah Palin.

The politics of division, fear, and subtle hatred are all the palin/mccain ticket have left. If this strategy works, I'll feel badly for this country. MY America isn't fear and hatred. MY United States of America is a place where anyone, regardless of that person's background, can make it. It's a hard place, in a hard time, to be sure - but it's STILL a place where we can live, love, and learn in peace.

$150,000 in clothing?

2008-10-23T13:15:00.000-04:00

....

uh...
yeah.
Sarah Palin spent...
One. Hundred. Fifty. THOUSAND. Dollars.

on clothes. CLOTHING.

I really don't like the 'false dichotomy' (aka Excluded Middle) logical fallacy, but let's use it just a bit in order to get an idea of the scope of spending $150,000 on clothing.

Let's say Joe wants to buy six packs with his 150 grand. He runs to Wal-Mart (they sell beer, right?) and gets a big cart. Pulling out his calculator, he determines that at the bargain price of about 5 dollars, he can buy THIRTY THOUSAND SIX PACKS OF BEER. He's gonna need a bigger truck, eh?

Or hey, Joe wants to buy plumbing supplies, too? Okay. Let's say he first buys a sixpack, in order to maintain the name. Oh, and a pack of Kools (because yeah, I'm being funny here, SRSLY) - so he's down to $149,900.00. He discovers that he's going to need to buy 4" 90 degree elbow sections (in PVC) which cost, oh....

Ah screw it. You get the idea and I've really extended the comparison too far already. That's a LOT of money on a wardrobe. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if it was HER money, but it wasn't. The money came from the RNC and the McCain campaign. From donations. Many of those donations are from people who are stretching their own means in order to be able to send in money to a campaign. Joe the Plumber, or Joe the Barfly (AKA Sixpack), or Hockey Mom #3.

I, for example, have donated fifty dollars to Senator Obama's campaign. If a report comes out that the CAMPAIGN spent even $10,000 on clothing, I would be (a) on the phone with the campaign demanding my money back and (b) NOT voting for Obama.

Yeah, the one silver-lining-ish thing going on here is that after the election, the clothing is supposed to be auctioned off and proceeds going to a charity. How nice!! Does that make it right? Not really, in my book.

FOR GREAT LULZ

2008-10-09T09:02:00.000-04:00

The newest Skeptic's Circle has appeared at Evolved and Rational. Click and read. Click and read. Click.... and read.

A REAL Republican's thoughts on Palin.

2008-10-02T14:17:00.000-04:00

"Who wants honey / as long as there's some money"
-Smashing Pumpkins "Cherub Rock"

These thoughts are from a discussion I've been having with an honest-to-goodness Republican that I have verified as actually being active within the Republican organization. This is a direct quote -

As for Palin, I think it's ironic that the show the McCain campaign is most angry with over their satire of Palin is Saturday Night Live, home of the original Not Ready For Prime Time Players. That the campaign has made such a big deal out of both it and their war with the NY Times is proof that the Republicans are on the defensive; the Republicans stay as close to their playbook as the Democrats do, and when Republicans are losing they almost always try to pick a fit with the media. It gins up the base, and if they lose, provides a scapegoat that protects them from self-doubt. The McCain's campaign is trying to turn every gaffe and sign of weakness that Palin openly displays into a positive for base turnout by accusing the media of having a Republican bias.

Palin was picked to shake up the race, which McCain was unable to get traction in, shore up the base by giving them something (ANYTHING) to be enthusiastic about, and to try to join the 'Historic Campaign' race with Obama. Americans like to hear that they have done things that are historic; I think that was one of the unsung factors that got W elected. Picking Palin was risky, and it had a big immediate effect because it ignited the trapped, unexpressed envy of the Republican party for the kind of energy that Obama's campaign has shown. On the morning after, though, we find out that she can't put a sentence together, and is so far out of her league that Biden is more likely to get the bends talking to her than he is to name drop some foreign leader. She claims to read all of the newspapers, but can't think of one. She contradicts McCain's Pakistan policy, which is itself full of inconsistencies because Obama out-danced and boxed him in, and then does a double interview with him there as chaperone. Her handlers, former Bush campaign staff, do what worked for them in the past, which is train her like a parrot with talking points and keep her in media lockdown. McCain's disatisfaction with her handlers leaked last week; the problem for him is that her handlers are a symptom of a deeper problem with his campaign.

On a macro level, McCain's campaign reflects the divisions in the party; McCain is not well liked by the base, who consider him too likely to work with liberals and sell out their values, just as much of the base feels about congressional republicans and W. The next layer is the campaign staff itself, full of the sucess stories of past Republican victories- which means that they are largely from the Bush and congressional races. In essence, the base doesn't fully trust the McCain campaign, and the campaign staff themselves are former adversaries of their front runner as well as former advocates of the Republican elected officials that the base is furious with. Cognitiive dissonance is inevitable, and to make it worse, Republicans have a very centralized information control system to keep people on talking points. Going off message is like going off the reservation- it is not a good career move. This is why the usual conservative talking heads were attacking Obama as a flip flopper until early in the summer; the talking point hadn't been updated, and the party was still running against John Kerry.

All in all, I don't think she'll be vice president, and I don't think she will ever be vice-presidential or presidential material. It's not her fault though; I don't think anyone could possibly hold the 2nd place under McCain right now and not look like a total fool. I suspect, though I don't have any evidence, that other VP candidates who knew the state of McCain's campaign may have decided to simply pass on the offer.

She was tossed into a heady campaign pulled in different directions with a man at the helm who the staff largely work for for their own career advancements with competing political philosophies, not out of loyalty. What makes sense within the campaign does not make sense anywhere else. Decisions are made quickly and frantically, and then get locked into policy. Anyone thrown into that mess midstream, unable to absorb everything that is going on, with no power to make decisions, is going to be very confused and have a hard time putting a pretty face on it for the public. Probably the thing that demonstrates that Palin is not vice presidential material is not anything she's said in interviews, but that she accepted the slot on the ticket in the first place.

No kidding. I think one of the most interesting and damning lines here is "I suspect, though I don't have any evidence, that other VP candidates who knew the state of McCain's campaign may have decided to simply pass on the offer."

It's been pretty apparent to me that the McCain campaign hasn't been run correctly from the get-go. He subverted himself in order to win the primaries, and lost the "Maverick" thing he had going for himself. It used to be, several years ago, that dyed-in-the-wool liberals (hell, my brother Adam) actually thought the McCain was admirable. Now? I mostly see contempt.... the kind of contempt I saw for the punk / modern rock bands of the late 80's when they started signing to major labels and "selling out".

Honestly, it seems like Palin is making it worse for McCain - she's shining a spotlight on the mismanaged disaster McCain's stuck with. I can't even fully blame it on him, though- his campaign has been run, from day one, as if it was based in 1996 instead of 2008. Obama's been faster and more flexible in his campaign, dancing circles around McCain where it counts. It's kind of painful to watch, too... I really do sometimes wish McCain's staff would get a clue. Even though I want him to lose, I also want an interesting campaign that actually has ideas and discussion instead of the Rove-esque advertising and soundbites coming from both sides.

Drinking Game Addendum

2008-10-02T12:03:00.000-04:00

This is for the VP ticket- before I post, however, I forgot to mention that the drinking game post found here about the first presidential was cowritten and inspired by my brother Brad. Actually, almost all of it was him, and his idea.

All of the "Presidential Debate Drinking Game" rules apply, but add the following:

Take a drink when:
HOTWORDS:
"Lipstick"
"Russia"
"Putin"
"Six-pack"
Any Supreme Court case (BESIDES Roe v. Wade) is mentioned
Any word that is supposed to end in "ING" ends in "in'" instead.

Take two drinks when:
Joe Biden mentions dead people
Palin mentions the bridge.

Chug your drink when:
Biden laughs out loud at Palin
Palin...

ah screw it. Here's the thing:
Palin. Sucks. Watching her is almost physically painful in so many ways. Yeah, she's easy on the eyes and has great folksy stories... but she's clueless about so many things in SO many ways... and if McCain wins, I'd lay better than even odds that she's going to be president within a few years. Watch the debate tonight, and try to imagine her as the president regardless of party affiliation. She's NOT COMPETENT. She's qualified, sure - anyone over 35 that's a natural USA citizen is qualified - but she's NOT COMPETENT.

If I was voting Republican (which, in the interest of fair disclosure I have done - 1996 I voted Clinton, 2000+2004 for Bush as well as voting Republican for various local and state positions), I would be calling every Republican officeholder I could find and expressing my extreme dissatisfaction with the choice of Palin. This is insane - it's not even her opposition to abortion rights and beliefs about evolution that REALLY scare me - it's the fact that she's a complete IDIOT. I'd rather have someone smart with views opposite to mine in office any day.

In fact, I'd rather just hand Bush another term than see Palin anywhere near the White House.

Seriously.

Doomed.

2008-09-30T08:46:00.000-04:00

Seriously?
For VICE PRESIDENT?

Senator McCain, this is insane... "country first", my ass.

My favorite XKCD so far:

2008-09-29T08:37:00.000-04:00

I read several blogs and comics online whenever I get a chance. Some of them stack up a LOT before I get to them, but others I check as soon as google's reader tells me there's an new post.

The new XKCD post is a good example of what I read immediately. Incredible stuff. Go read it and then spend some time reading some of the older comics as well, if you can.

Presidential Debates 2008 DRINKING GAME!

2008-09-26T17:15:00.003-04:00

That's right folks! It's time for the first 2008 presidential debates! What better way to support your candidate than to get a case of cheap beer and watch it with some friends? (Okay, there might be better ways - but whatever - this is the FUN way)

The rules are simple. Go grab 2 beers. When one is empty, whoever has the least beer needs to go grab you a refill (and a refill for whoever else needs one) because at any given time, you might just need both beers. This game will not leave you in any condition to drive. I bear no responsibility for anything you say or do or who you choose to vote for.

Take a drink when:

HOTWORDS:

"Change" (as a verb)
"Maverick"
"9/11"
"Freedom"
"Axis of Evil"
"Bin Laden"
"Celebrity"
"Evil"
"Extremist"
"Left / right-wing"
"Hope"
"Jobs"
"Victory"
"Surge"
"Al-Queda"
"Experience"
"Folks"
"Main-Street"
"Hard-Working"

McCain paints Obama as an elitist
McCain begins a sentence with "My Friends"
Obama begins a sentence with "Look"
Obama mentions McCain's X number of houses
The crowd applauds Obama (only)
The commentator repeats a question because the candidate avoided it the first time
Obama compares McCain to Bush
Anytime someone mentions a #-point plan, take a drink for each point
Either candidate laughs / chuckles / guffaws / chorles
Freudian slips
A candidate runs out of time and talks over the moderator
Anyone messes up the name of a foreign leader or country
Either candidate refers to McCain's POW status

Take two drinks when:

McCain says "change"
Obama mentions McCain's military background
The crowd applauds McCain (only)
McCain takes credit for Obama's idea
Obama takes credit for McCain's idea
Either candidate makes a joke that the audience actually laughs at beyond a polite chuckle
Standing ovation
The moderator asks the crowd to quiet down

Chug your drink when:

Obama rhymes
McCain accuses democrats / Obama of doing something Republicans / he's known for having done
McCain makes it more than 10 seconds on camera without blinking.
Anyone points with their index finger
Anyone dies of old age
Obama says "Cracka please!"
Kang or Kodos makes a guest appearance
Obama brings up the Keating Five
McCain lifts an arm over his head

Debates? SHMEBATE!

2008-09-26T09:15:00.001-04:00

This is turning into something outright hysterical to watch - Obama was in Washington DC yesterday, along with McCain, and everyone was working furiously to get some sort of deal done and.... oh wait.

Never mind that, it turns out that one side showed up with a proposal, ready to debate, and the other side showed up with an unworkable proposal full of bullet points and said that they would NOT debate. Guess which side is which?

So McCain might or might not show up at the debates tonight, citing the fact that he has a lot of work to do... or something. On a Friday night. Obama says he's going to be at the debate. So... I have a solution. McCain sends Palin to debate Obama. After all, she's a VP candidate - she should be able to step right the hell in and debate with anyone, right? Yeah... no. I just don't think that would work too well for the Palin side of the equation. I'd almost feel badly for her.. it would be like watching Edwards go up against Cheney again. Just a total mismatch in skill levels. (for those of you who don't remember, in 2004, Cheney tore Edwards to little pieces in their "sit down" debate. It was painful to watch.)

Fun stuff, politics.

UPDATE: Debate's back on. I'm getting some cheap beer and watching this tonight. woot.