Category: Politics

The upcoming New Yorker cover and its consequent fallout is a shame. I would totally expect the reaction that the Obama campaign is having from a conservative candidate in his shoes. After all, they have done all that they can to discredit the “liberal media” (i.e. media not controlled by conservative owners and organizations) over the last decade or so, so much so that people are not sure what is real information and what is purely myth, as attested to by the purely-myth, conservative mass email that was forwarded to me today about all of the ways the Democratic party has screwed the American people over Social Security over the last few years.

(more…)

The story that broke over the weekend about Bush/Cheney escalating covert activities in Iran, possibly indicating a build-up to armed confrontation with the country is not surprising, is it? Especially interesting is this quote from the article:

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and “do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program,” Hersh said.

Haven’t we heard it all before? The President’s logic seems to be, “I understand that we spend big bucks on all of these intelligence operations, recruiting and training smart people to carry them out, but in the the end, Dick and myself and our buddies are a lot smarter than all of them.” It’s infuriating to see the U.S. embroiled in the war in Iraq, having gotten there on false pretenses put forth by the administration, and then to see the same thing happening again now. Now, just as with the Iraq invasion, you can’t help from feeling that ulterior motives are involved.
In this case, it’s hard to believe that the November election is not fully part of these new activities. So far the polls are pointing to a decent Obama popular and electoral lead. The rhetoric coming from both sides of the race is the same that we have always heard. The republicans will try to paint Obama as too inexperienced to handle military matters, McCain’s veteran status and tenure as a politician will be cast as the obvious antidote.

(more…)

After being beaten decisively in N.C. and not winning by the desired or expected margin in Indiana yesterday, Hillary Clinton today vows to fight on, stating in so many words that “she must continue to stand up for what she believes in.”
Is it me or has what either of the candidates “believes in” become more and more difficult to discern as this campaign has gone on?
We know that both candidates are solidly “democratic” in most of their stances, but, as far as I can see, there’s little that separates either of them on most of the issues. They have similar approaches to many issues (e.g. health care), and both have yet to propose any substantive plans for other issues (e.g. the economy).
As the campaign has gone on longer, issues have taken a back seat to personal attacks. The energy put forth by both campaigns is purely being used for spin, media manipulation and smear. That energy could, and should, be being put toward developing a real platform and agenda that can be used to defeat McCain in November.
It’s time for Hillary to step down and let the general election campaign to begin in earnest. It’s time to start making plans and figuring out how we are going to really handle the mess in Iraq, the failing economy and it’s international ramifications, the economic disparity between the rich and (increasingly) poor, environmental protection, etc.
For Hillary to continue the contest at a point in which it is mathematically impossible for her to get the nomination (unless she manages to pull strings within the party and gain an overwhelming majority of the remaining superdelegates, which would run the risk of alienating voters by making them feel disenfranchised), is just an act of too much pride on the part of Sen. Clinton. Sen. Obama has the lead in pledged delegates and overall delegates, his speeches are more inspiring (and despite this being downplayed by his opponents, inspiration is sorely needed in the current domestic environment), and there’s not much that separates either candidate on most of the issues.
It’s time to stop the insanity, save that $6.4 million of her personal money, and get on with the business of beating McCain in November.
Please, Hillary, please… just let it go.

So I just started this week at a new Job with CNN, and whereas it has been an interesting start, I have kind of had to do a roll-your-own training schedule that has left me with lots of time to check out the site and keep up with the daily news, even down to a granular level.
So today I am looking and I see this story about Ron Paul being a racist, or about some old remarks attributed to him, or some other sort of thing.
The story didn’t startle me as much as it may have others. I do believe Paul when he says he did not write the things that are being attributed to him, but they apparently were written under the banner of a political newsletter bearing his name. Regardless of whether he wrote it or not, he should have protected his “brand” (his name) a little better.
But all of that is neither here nor there, the real question is whether or not the Internet will shut down if Ron Paul does not receive the Republican nomination for president?
An acquaintance of mine recently boldly stated that the Internet would indeed shut down if Paul does not get the nomination at his house one night after he had imbibed at least a couple of pints of Irish Whiskey.
I do not know this person or his political views very well. I do know that he is smallish, has a tendency toward a Napoleon complex at times, and that if he has an opinion at all about something, it is a STRONG opinion.
I really didn’t engage him in a debate about the merits, or not, of Ron Paul but I did ask him why he thought Paul’s failure to get nominated would cause the Information Superhighway to come to a screeching halt.
(The following is cleaned up for clarity and because this is a family establishment and because my writing skills are not sharp enough to adequately do justice to the drunken blathering my ears heard.)
“Have you seen Slashdot? The programmers and web developers are going f%$*king crazy over Ron Paul. He’s the best f%$*king candidate out there. He’s f%$*king incredible. F%$*k Hillary. I will kick her in her f%$*king teeth. If he doesn’t get the f%$*king nomination, and get elected president, the f%$*king web people will revolt and the f%$*king Internet will shut down. I f%$*king mean it.”
Or something about like that.
I didn’t really engage after that. I know, and knew, so little about Paul other than his belief that all currencies should be legal and viable in the US which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me, but I am just a web designer, not a developer, so obviously I cannot understand the higher points, indeed the internal logic, of the Paul-ian platform. I just politely waited for the right moment when I could escape from the porch to back in the house.
I didn’t really think about much, but as the weeks have gone on it seems more and more people are drinking Paul’s Kool-Aid. They are coming out of the “f%$*king” woodwork. There are on the corner of Moreland and Freedom Parkway on the weekends. Homemade stickers and grafitti tags are popping up on city buses. I hear stories about campaign staffers surveying land in Ghana in case the election doesn’t work out so all of the web developers will have somewhere to take the Internet when they shut it down.
After reading the article about the racist remarks today, I started thinking about Mr. Paul again. It may me think of Lyndon Johnson wanting to perpetrate a rumor that his opponent had sexual congress with barnyard animals just so the opponent would have to publicly deny it. Once a rumor is released to the major press, whether it is true or false, the damage is usually done. Or is it in this case?
Since the Internet is apparently nearly totally run by Paul supporters, don’t they have the means of quashing this rumor before it gets out of hand? Can they not easily spread rumors just as bad or worse about his opponents? I f they have the power to shut down the Internet if he does not get the nomination, then the least they could do for their leader is help a brother out in a time of need.
So I decided to do a search of the FEC campaign contribution database at washingtonpost.com. I inserted “programmer” for the “occupation” and chose different candidates from the “candidate” dropdown menu. Whereas I realize this is less than scientific as there can be other “programmers” than “computer programmers, (I am sure that Paul’s supporters could provide a much better algorithm and statistical model for determining this info) scanning the list seemed to reassure me that most programmers were the ones that my drunk, angry friend seemed to be referring to.
Close scrutiny and a little basic math showed led to some frightening observations. Indeed, my little, napoleonic, angry, drunk friend might be right. Paul far outdoes his other Republican candidates when it comes to geek contributions. He even far outdoes the Democrats except Obama who he is still beating by a decent margin. See the chart below for the actual numbers I found.
I am amazed that a drunken, off-the-cuff comment seems to be backed up by freely available information.
I am also scared though, because if the geeks revolt, and shut down the Internet, where will I get my porn, or send emails to mom, or waste time at work, or watch all of those “must-see” YouTube videos? Not to mention, what will I do for a living?
Maybe run for president?

Interesting Op-Ed piece on nytimes.com today by Paul Krugman called “Gore Derangement Syndrome”. I mean, I’ve never claimed to be the biggest Gore fan, but he has turned out right a lot more than he’s turned wrong in recent years (besides the, possibly urban legend, claim of inventing the Internet).
Favorite quote:

“So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed.”