Five Things To Remember About the Impending Federal Shutdown

1) That no matter what Fox-Not-News and the Republican leadership claim, this shutdown is all the fault of Republicans.

Which of the two parties has a wingnut base insisting on a shutdown, just to prove their hatred of "Big Government?"  That would be the Republicans.  The last two times we had a shutdown, it was because of a Republican Congress at odds with a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) that they just happened to despise on a personal level.  Every other time - a Republican President with Republican Congress, and a Republican President with a Democratic Congress, and a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress - we've never had a shutdown.  It's only in this combination - Democratic President vs. Republican-controlled Congress (even with half of Congress with the House counts) - that we've had this conflict.

2) This impending shutdown was avoidable IF the Republicans were more willing to compromise, instead of their insisting on all the compromises be done by the Democrats.

The Democrats offered compromises each time this impending shutdown loomed over the last few months, and indeed have been offering compromises to the Republicans ever since the Obama era began.  Yet each time, the Republicans refused to budge on any key points that they are so eager to protect: for example, any rollback, even a modest one, on the hard Bush-era tax cuts of 2001-03.  One of the biggest causes of the current deficit crisis we've got is that Bush-era Tax Cut.  And yet every argument about how to fix the deficit doesn't even go anywhere near discussing a tax hike to, you know, ACTUALLY PAY FOR SH-T that needs to get paid now.

Even now, the Republicans are offering an extension for another week while they "debate" the issue further.  But that extension includes more budget cuts that Obama and the Democrats are not entirely willing to discuss yet.  Especially as those cuts hit social services like Planned Parenthood that would get a majority of Democratic voters in an uproar.  And the extension will certainly not resolve the main sticking point: that the Republicans really want ALL of their budget cuts and even MORE tax cuts, and that the Republicans are trying to demolish the Democrats cut by cut, extension by extension.  At some point, even the Democrats can't compromise anymore...

3) The shutdown will make a huge hit on the economy. 

Lack of spending money for public workers and for people receiving benefits will affect the private sector, especially places like retail, services and repair, etc.  And again, this is what Republicans want.  Because the Republicans are convinced they can enrage the public against DEMOCRATS who refused to roll over and beg for mercy to accept the Republicans' killing off half the social services that government provides.

4) Republicans are convinced this fight is Win-Win.

Either they get a government shutdown that cripples the economy and destroys peoples' lives... or they get their massive budget cuts to social services, Medicare and Medicaid, schools and education, which cripples the economy and destroys peoples' lives anyway. 

In the possibility that Obama and the Democrats grow a spine, and they decide to hold out on the shutdown to force the Republicans to concede, the Far Right that's pushing for this fight is convinced that will serve their purposes.  Because the Republicans are convinced at this moment that they will never concede anything, and that by 2012 if the shutdown lasts that long they can rile up enough anger against Obama (and not on themselves) to win the White House.  And then they get everything they want.  Like I said, in their minds it's Win-Win.

5) If there's a method of forcing the Republicans to the negotiating tables for good-faith efforts to compromise on a budget bill, I've yet to see it.

Lawsuits could be a means of pushing the matter to a solution... but can the Courts intervene in this matter?  What legal action can be taken to compel Congress to do what needs to be done?  And who would have standing to force the issue?

As it stands right now, we're screwed.  I don't see the Republicans giving an inch to resolve this matter, and they seem eager to fulfill their wingnut agenda of killing of New Deal-era social services once and for all.

The best thing I can hope for now is that enough Americans are aware enough that this is truly all the fault of the Republicans and that the vast majority of this nation rises up to protest what the GOP wingnuts are doing to us.

Read more ...

How To Identify Hate Speech

It looks a lot like this:

Yet Terry Jones, the pastor who organized a mock trial that ended with the burning of a Koran and led to violence in Afghanistan, remained unrepentant on Saturday. He said that he was “saddened” and “moved” by the deaths (note: as of 20 dead so far), but that given the chance he would do it all over again.

What Jones did was Hate Speech:

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

When Jones burned the Koran, he knew full well the Muslim community across the planet would be outraged.  He knew that violence would follow.  He may not have known who would get killed in the process, but he had to know there would be at least one death at the hands of an outraged mob.

Jones incited others to acts of violence.  And he revels in it now, glorying in the attention we're giving to his sad sorry ass.

What is sad is that there are so many in the media/journalism world - Sullivan, Benen, some of the others I read online - that are rushing to Jones' defense, claiming what he did was "wicked" but that "hey, it's protected by the First Amendment."

I call bullshit.

What Jones did: This is not protected speech under the First Amendment.  He intended for an act of violence to follow what he said and did.  This is in my mind no different that a Klu Klux Klansman burning a cross on a black family's yard.  This is no different than an anti-Semite smearing accusations of blood libel on the wall of a synagogue (using pig's blood, no less).  This is no different than some racist bastard saying and doing something that gets a riot going in a street.

And getting a riot going is EXACTLY what Jones did.

Jones may not have pulled a trigger of a gun or swung a machete or committed a direct act of murder on the streets of Afghanistan this weekend.  That blame falls directly on the hands of the murderers themselves and the mullahs who incited the mobs to march on the UN office in Mazar-I-Sharif.  But Jones gave them the outrage: Jones gave them the motivation.

Jones' action makes it harder for the United States to handle itself on the world stage, especially now as the U.S. is trying to steady the entire Middle East during the uprisings between Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  Good Lord, Afghanistan.  From the 1800s onward, that place has never known a day of peace, has it?  And Jones, reaching out from his pathetic little church building in the woods of Florida, is making it worse:

In speaking with Afghans about the incident, it’s surprised me how many people support the spirit of the protests. No one I’ve talked to supports the killings of the UN workers. But even well-educated, informed Afghans tell me that it’s good that people are speaking out against the desecration of the Quran.
Much of the support stems from the inability of many people here to contextualize the March 20 Quran burning. A translator who works for a fellow journalist here in Kabul did not know that Florida pastor Terry Jones was the same person who threatened to burn the Quran last September.
This led to the perception that many Americans share his beliefs, even if he heads a small church of about 30 people who have so little support that they’ve had to sell their furniture on eBay to stay afloat. Mr. Jones is now trying to sell the church property.
In a place like Afghanistan, where the vast majority of the populace is illiterate and many lack regular access to reliable news outlets, perception and rumors often become more important than facts. Now that the story of the Quran burning has spread, it almost does not matter how strongly US officials – from President Barack Obama to Gen. David Petraeus – condemn Jones’s actions. The damage has been done.
After almost 10 years of foreign troops and international aid groups, the Taliban is still a serious threat and it’s difficult to see what tens of billions of dollars of foreign aid money has bought for the country. Patience is wearing thin among many Afghans, and incidents like the Quran burning provide a vehicle for their growing anger...

Jones and his ilk "accused" the Koran of inciting crimes such as murder and rape during that mock trial of his leading up to the book burning.  By his own legal argument, he's as guilty as that Koran he burned.

Jones is trying, through his acts of outrage, to condemn an entire religious belief, to condemn millions of Muslims who really aren't all violent rabble.  If they DO get violent, Muslims are no different than Christians and Jews who go rioting in the streets when THEY get offended as well.

If any condemnation of violence and murder should be applied, it should be based on their ACTIONS, not their belief.  Jones could have believed in what he thought about Islam and the Koran, and it would have remained an offensive but protected belief under the guideline of the First Amendment.  BUT HE ACTED ON THAT BELIEF, and in that action committed an atrocity that drove others to respond with murder.  That makes it Hate Speech: His actions a Hate Crime.  He's as guilty as the bastards who killed in Mazar.

Jones should go to trial for that Hate Crime.  A REAL TRIAL.  And found guilty in a court of law governed by Men, as Jones should be found.

The trial awaiting Jones for his sins in Heaven with the God of Abraham, of Isaac and Ishmael, is already a foregone conclusion: the deepest pit of Hell is not enough for Jones...

Read more ...

Caveat Emptor: Florida Has Crooks

One of the biggest reasons I snarl in the general direction of any self-anointed Libertarian is that Libertarians have this huge desire to deregulate everything in their path.

It's all part of their disdain for bureaucracy, you see.  Especially government bureaucracy.  Regulation of a business or service means rules.  Rules to remember, rules to follow, agencies to oversight you, agencies you answer to.  Taxes to pay for agencies and oversight.  Fines to pay when the oversight finds something fishy.

Libertarians hate that.  All of that.  So their big idea of Small Government is that you CAN deregulate.  Leave the controls and the decision-making to the masters of industry and the makers of things.  They believe that "enlightened-self-interest" will drive the deregulated businesses to behave, lest the free market turn their business to other more honest providers of services and supplies.  The "Invisible Hand" of the Free Market will be all the regulation we will need.

There's a huge gaping problem with that.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST.  If people think no one is watching and they think can get away with it, they (at least a solid majority of "They") will doing something we could consider criminal.  And the longer they act like that, the more brazen in their behavior they will get.  The phrase "everybody does it" will become common and more of those working in that environment will fall sway to that idea.  A perfect example is Bernie Madoff: he did what he did for so long and with so many other supposedly enlightened people because most of his victims believed Madoff was openly gaming the system... and they wanted in on his trickery as a means of making easy money.

There is a reason regulations exist in the first place: TO PROTECT PEOPLE.  Ever read The Jungle?  Anyone clue you in that this year is the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire?  What do you think happened in 1929 to 1933 that forced Congress to pass the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?  And did anyone notice what happened when Glass-Steagall got shredded in 1999, considering the economic catastrophes that followed?

And yet, the Far Right has taken this Libertarian zeal for deregulation for all they can (because such deregulation helps make big businesses get even bigger and wealthier).  Especially here in Republican-controlled Florida (article link to Howard Troxler):

In 1995, the operator of a Pasco County dance studio was sentenced to prison after scamming more than $1 million from lonely, confused elderly customers.  When he got out... he simply went to a new dance studio...

Investigators found 30 customers who had been talked into signing 328 separate, deliberately confusing contracts worth $3.5 million... A studio operator defended all this by saying customers had voluntarily made "an adult decision."  As for any complaints, he said: "Maybe some of the students went on these trips and didn't get laid."  He got 30 years in prison.

Why am I dredging up this ancient history?  Because dance studios are one of 20 professions about to be deregulated entirely by the state Legislature.  Maybe they should be.  Maybe there will always be crooks, and victims to give them their money.  But the effects of House Bill 5005 will be felt by a lot of Floridians in daily life. Among other things, the bill repeals regulation of:
Auto mechanics.
In-state moving companies.
Charities, real or fake.
And a lot more...

...State law now makes it illegal for a charity to use "deception, false pretense, misrepresentation or false promise" to get a contribution. That will be repealed...

...This is, after all, about "creating jobs." If some of those new "jobs" in Florida involving bilking widows, running shady auto-repair shops or hijacking people's furniture — who cares?

Deregulation facing this state on an epic scale.

There is an aspect of human nature called GREED.  Every economic model - Mercantilism, Feudalism, Socialism, Communism and even Capitalism - has that problem of GREED.  The trick has been to clamp down on GREED as best as possible.

Florida is home to a truckload of elderly people.  Retirees, most of them flush (and not so flush) with retirement money and pensions.  One of our biggest problems in this state are the numbers of unlicensed businesses that try to scam or trick their way into getting people to pay for services they don't deliver or provide on the cheap and half-assed.

This effort of deregulation is going to make it a lot easier for these con artists to ply their "trade".  To trick residents into coughing up money for services never provided.  To trick them into signing up for things they don't need.  Even honest businesses may find it more tempting to squeeze more money out of services than usual.  Dishonest businesses are going to find it easier, and get worse.

This problem of GREED and its progeny SHODDINESS and RUIN, it's been going on for years, and it's been taking a lot of time and effort by the agencies we did have for consumer protection to keep up with the con artists and shady businesses.  But coming soon, without those regulations in place, those protection agencies might as well raise the white flag and go home.  The agencies won't have rules to enforce.  And the people won't have anyone protecting them or their homes.

Until the next hurricane blows in and all the homes get blown or washed out to sea.

Welcome to Florida.  Home of the Con Artist.  Keep both hands on your wallet and keys at all times.

Read more ...

Because It's April Fools Day, You Get This

Because it takes 2 years to really run a Presidential campaign, now is about the time you start seeing the candidates for the President of the United States lining up for the next election.  For 2012, it means the Republicans have a serious primary to find some poor sucker to run against Barack Obama (being the current incumbent, will only face meager Democratic opposition from grandstanding idiots who think they can either embarrass Obama or God Help Us actually unseat him).

The list is in alphabetic order, and lists their highest or best-known political position (or job title).  It is incomplete as there are some who might put their hat in the ring that haven't done so, and there are some who have been named by others (in a "Draftee" way like Chris Christie) but have publicly refused (so far).  This is the list that I know wants to run or could consider a run.

Please do not laugh, cry, or scream in terror until the ride is over.

Michelle Bachmann - Congresswoman, Minnesota
Positives: Has a long career in the House as an incumbent.  She speaks to the base of the party and energizes them like few other candidates can.  Is openly combative and telegenic.  Has an advantage over her immediate rival Sarah Palin as the woman candidate - Bachmann never quit halfway through her job the way Palin did.
Negatives: She's batshit crazy.  Even if she believes a tenth of the crap she spews out into the media.
Bachmann represents the Teabagger wing of the GOP as the standard bearer and go-to person for Fox-Not-News when they want a wingnut rebuttal to something that Obama (or worse, that Speaker Boehner) has done.  And while Bachmann energizes the base of the GOP, she'll scare off every moderate and sane (there are a few left) Republican over to the Democratic ticket.
Chances: To win the primaries?  In a prolonged campaign against other, more reasonable-sounding candidates, Bachmann could flake out early and scare off those who would otherwise worship at her crazy ass.  But if she wins big in the early wingnut states (which is possible), she becomes the candidate.  But the party backers have to know if she wins, the Republicans lose (because the independent and moderate voters would flee to the more reasonable Obama) and could well drag the whole ticket down.

John Bolton - ex-Ambassador to the U.N., Maryland
Positives: Seriously.  None.
Negatives: Is one of the better-known figures from the Bush The Lesser administration... known for his neoconservative extremism, back-stabbing interoffice politicking, and ability to offend everyone who's not a Fox-Not-News Talking Head.
Chances: Laughable.  If he thinks he can run on a War On Terror ticket, he's not going to get very far.

Jeb Bush - ex-Governor, Florida
Positives: Has his backers within the national party.  Is a major player at both the state and national level.  Comes from a large state that could swing to Obama in 2012 unless there's a draw on the ticket.  He's an experienced campaigner and fund-raiser.  He's considered the "smart one" within his circle of power.  He's an instantly recognizable figure with a well-known name.  He hasn't put that name out there, but still there's a lot of well-known conservative advocates trying to draft him to run in 2012.
Negatives: That well-known name?  HE'S A BUSH.  He's Dubya's younger brother.  And the last thing the Republicans want is a reminder of how the last Bush in the White House - massive deficits, unfunded payouts to pharm companies, two mismanaged wars, weak job creation, two economic scandals, massive government ineptitude handling major hurricane Katrina, and more - performed.  The other factor is that while Bush has his supporters in Florida, that support could well be dead and gone by 2012 thanks to a state government run by a Medicare Fraud and by a Republican-led state legislature shredding every ethics reform on the books.  The agenda they're pushing is the one Jeb tried to push as governor 5 years earlier.  The anti-teacher bills just signed into law, for example, have his fingerprints all over them.  It's doubtful by 2012 Jeb could win his own state...
Chances: Jeb is supposed to be the smart one, right?  If so, he has to look at the landscape and see that this nation will not stand to see another Bush within our lifetime serving in the White House.  The first attack ad from the Democrats will be morphing a photo of Jeb into a photo of Dubya.  That's all.  And his campaign is over at that point.

Haley Barbour - Governor, Mississippi
Positives: Is a well-known player within the Republican Party and among their financial backers.  Has a solid track record of conservativism.
Negatives: Let's not even consider the possibility of the Republicans putting up a white Southern conservative from a Deep South rebel-flag-waving state against an African-American President (well, maybe just that point alone...).  Barbour presides over a state (Mississippi) that's practically dead last in a lot of categories - education, health care, job growth, income equality - and so would have to defend a record where he really didn't improve much of anything.  There's also a poor record of handling the post-Katrina crisis in his state: a national campaign would flare that all back to the forefront.  And this isn't even touching on Barbour's biggest sin: He worked as a lobbyist.
Chances: Compared to other Southern elected officials like Huckabee, Barbour's got no shot past the primaries and people know it.  If he does get the nomination through his campaigning efforts, his record compared to Obama's will hurt.

Herman Cain - CEO, Georgia
Positives: Is a player within the Republican Party, especially against the hated Health Care Reform programs.
Negatives: Has no history of elected office.  He's best known running a second-tier pizza chain.  The current history of CEOs running for office or running government (Dubya, Rick "MEDICARE FRAUD" Scott) is terrifying.  And while he's got the extremist political views to entice primary voters, in an open general election he's doomed.
Chances: There is honestly not a lot he brings to a national ticket.  He should have considered running at least for Congress to get a political resume going...

Mitch Daniels - Governor, Indiana
Positives: Known among the media elites as "sane" in an increasingly whackjob party.  As Governor, pushed for a balanced budget platform that did include some tax increases much to the chagrin of the more tax-cut obsessed crowd.  Has some modicum of popularity outside of the GOP.  During the current state-level war of GOP Governors against the labor unions, Daniels proposed dropping Indiana's union-killing efforts because "it wasn't what we campaigned on" (I.E., "it's gonna kill us in the polls"), meaning that this guy actually has his eyes open while he's driving (unlike the other Governors who are speeding into a brick wall of recall movements).  Daniels does not have his name out there (yet), but there's a Draft movement among the media elites fearful of a Bachmann, Palin, or Other Whackjob Candidate campaign.
Negatives: Worked as the budget guy under the Dubya administration, the stain of which will never wash away.  He still prefers cutting state budgets over raising tax revenues, meaning the poor and middle class families aren't going to be too fond of him come 2012.
Chances: He hasn't put his name out there.  A good reason is that Daniels, being genuinely sane, knows that the current GOP environment will either kill him in the primaries or else would force him to adopt stances that on a national level would kill him against Obama in 2012.  Word is he's smart enough to wait until 2016...

Newt Gingrich - ex-Speaker/Congressman, Georgia
Positives: National figure.  Long viewed by the Republican base as one of their big thinkers and policy creators.  Can get onto any talking head show for Sundays and get listened to seriously without any criticism.
Negatives: IS A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE.  This is a guy twice-divorced who goes up on a platform to preach "Family Values".  And the way he divorced - abandoning his first wife in a hospital bed!  having an adulterous affair WHILE PURSUING Bill Clinton for his adultery! - each time paints Newt as a disgusting human being.  His ambition is so blatant as to be crass: his recent flip-flops on Obama's handling of Libya has already made him a subject of ridicule among the media elites he hangs out with.  He's not that well-liked within his own party.  And people may remember that he lost his Speakership when his own party turned on him.
Chances: He could get some distance in a primary because he's got a national-level name.  But the mudslinging against him will be fierce.  If Newt even survives the primaries, Obama's clean-cut persona compared to Newt's will make it Obama's election to win (hell, Obama can recruit Bill Clinton to help campaign for him, and Bill will crush Newt before lunchtime).

Mike Huckabee - ex-Governor, Arkansas
Positives: was the Dark Horse candidate from 2008 whose campaigning will still have its followers.  Has a decent governing record (with a few glaring negatives...).  Has a charisma few other candidates have in this primary.  Can appeal to the social conservatism of the wingnut base without scaring off moderate and independent voters (that much).  Unlike Barbour, Huckabee is a Southern governor who could campaign against an African-American President and not make it look like a Civil Rights struggle from the Sixties all over again.  Plays well with the media elites he needs to kiss up to if he gets the nomination.  Of the candidates currently polling, Huckabee is consistently the only one to ever show that he could beat Obama.
Negatives: During his governorship, he played loose with the paroling process by freeing certain individuals who went on to commit further crimes of rape and murder (the criminals plead Christian conversion or that they were victims of Clinton conspiracies).  If Dukakis was ruined by Willie Horton, Huckabee is doomed if Maurice Clemmons becomes more of a household name.  Huckabee's other problem with his governorship is that he preached fiscal balance with tax hikes alongside spending cuts: something the Club For Greed and Grover Norquist have never forgiven him for.  Huckabee's current job - as Talking Head on Fox-Not-News - is a big negative for those who hate Fox with a passion (and that number is growing).
Chances: Once Huckabee puts his name out there (he's still working for Fox, which is a conflict of interest right now), he's a front-runner.  His past history of getting primary wins in the South and other conservative states will draw back his supporters and include new ones (most likely the ones in 2008 who backed McCain) and make him a reliable pick for the party leadership.

Gary Johnson - ex-Governor, New Mexico
Positives: He's one of those little-known elected officials who got things done and has a great resume.  Was a low-tax libertarian who walked the walk, slashing thousands of spending projects even from Republican legislators, and left office with a state surplus and a honest rep.
Negatives: He's one of those little-known elected officials who got things done and thus no one thinks he has a snowball's chance in hell.  Because getting those things done meant compromise or working against your party's self-serving interests.  There's always a guy like this in each primary.  It's sad but true.  Is also a major marijuana decriminalization advocate, something the anti-drug crowds in the conservative base doesn't agree with.  His libertarian positions may work at the state level, but his budget-slashing habits at the federal level might not work (esp. because the President does not have line-item veto powers to cut specific spending projects, and esp. because the U.S. Congress is NEVER serious even under Republican rule to rein in spending).  If Johnson is serious about budget deficits, he's going to have to address defense spending (our biggest source of spending... AND waste)... and THAT would put him in opposition to the pro-war crowd.  Johnson is also coming from a sparsely populated state with little political influence on the national stage.
Chances: Very low.  The Republican base - the Teabaggers - may talk about wanting to cut spending to cut deficits, but they are actually terrified of someone who could actually DO it.  Just remember, the Teabagger crowd over the last two years has been genuinely inconsistent about financial issues (they're more consistent on the Social issues like abortion, abortion, and abortion).  Someone who could actually do something about the budget is the LAST guy they really want...     

Roy Moore - ex-Judge, Alabama

Positives: Absolutely none.
Negatives: Was infamously impeached from the Alabama Supreme Court for his obsession over putting a 50-ton Ten Commandments paperweight in front of every government building ON THE PLANET.  Even when he ran for elected office in the state (Governor), he lost by ridiculous numbers.  He can't even win his own state!  Moore's political position is for a religious conservatism that can even rankle his fellow social conservatives within the GOP.  And the party has to know that a guy like that on the national stage is going to scare every moderate and indy voter to the Democrats in a heartbeat.
Chances: Absolutely none at all.  He's doing this for the ego, not the Commandments.

Sarah Palin - ex-Mayor, Alaska (I refuse to list her as ex-Governor because she DIDN'T FINISH THE JOB)
Positives: Is one of the biggest names on the national stage.  Has a devoted fanbase that will back her no matter what.
Negatives: Is one of the most polarizing political figures in American history.  Her unfavorable numbers keep going UP while her popularity goes down.  She is currently in no position to impress anybody: either you love her or you HATE her.  And in this political environment, you can only lose those who love you: no one who HATES you tends to change their minds...  And nearly everyone has an opinion on her now.  There are few Undecideds left.
Her track record as an elected official is poor at best.  Any reputation she had as a "reformer" went away once people took a good look and found she only ran against the Establishment because that Establishment didn't give her the jobs she wanted.  And because she QUIT her governorship before she was even halfway finished with the term, her most complete accomplishment is pretty much her term as Mayor of a small town in Alaska: it's like asking the nation to make the Mayor of Yeehaw Junction the next Leader of the Free World.  :shudder:
Palin does not impress as an intellectual at any level.  Each interview she gave as a Veep candidate - even with easy-toss questioners - made her look unprepared and ignorant.  She now revels in being pridefully ignorant, as though that's a way of sticking it to the Establishment she so desperately wants to lead.  And while American voters may recognize political leaders that aren't brainiacs, they at least know their President has to be eloquent and convincing on the global stage: that takes some level of smarts, and Palin doesn't demonstrate that.  Ever.
The polling numbers show Obama trouncing Palin by wide margins.
Chances: Maybe back in 2009 she looked like a winner to her fanbase - which included a ton of Talking Heads who were dazzled by her - but in the harsh light of the oncoming election year even her original fanboys are fleeing.  Compared to more sensible candidates like Huckabee, Palin has no chance.  Even compared to the candidates appealing to her wingnut base - Bachmann, Gingrich in particular - Palin is an unserious choice.


Ron Paul - Congressman, Texas
Positives: Has a huge fanbase among the libertarian wing of the Republicans, especially the Teabaggers who are serious about fiscal matters.  Can re-ignite the passions voters had for him back in 2008.  Is as anti-Establishment a candidate as you'll get among Republicans that can turn out a crowd and argue effectively for his cause.  Is one of the few candidates to argue consistently about out-of-control spending and government size.
Negatives: Dear God.  His economic policy (switching back to Gold standards when the rest of the world won't, for example) may look great on paper but could cause such a shock that the entire global economy could crash.
Chances: Still slim.  His base isn't big enough to swamp enough primaries to win.  The party leadership doesn't like him at all.  And not everyone is a libertarian goddammit, no matter how much the libertarians try to convince everyone otherwise.

Tim Pawlenty - ex-Governor, Minnesota
Positives: One of the few Republican governors of recent times to be relatively popular.  Has a solid if unspectacular resume.  Ran on a consistently conservative platform.  The media elites consider him a viable candidate.
Negatives: One thing trumps all: the collapse of the I-35 bridge.  The controversy over that tragedy highlighted the problems of a Republican-led state government that was failing to repair and maintain public roads and bridges.  All the Democrats have to do is flash that YouTube of it collapsing and Pawlenty's done.
Past that, Pawlenty is notoriously uncharismatic.  His record as Minnesota governor may have been consistent but not that impressive.
Chances: Pawlently is currently the front-runner but only because the other big names haven't officially started.  Once the actual campaign gets going, Pawlenty has a huge uphill climb.  It's doubtful he can impress enough base voters in other states to side with him.
 
Buddy Roemer - ex-Governor, Louisiana
Positives: Who?
Negatives: Who?
Chances: What?

Mitt Romney - ex-Governor, Massachusetts
Positives: Solid track record as a state Governor.  Has major backing within the party at the national level.  Can campaign well.  Has some charisma.
Negatives: He was the front-runner going into the 2008 election... and lost to McCain.  With all the positives he had in 2008, he still lost.
That was because Romney's ambition is so naked it's at Newt/Hilary levels.  He flip-flops at a heartbeat to whatever he thinks the base voters support.  His biggest success as governor - passage of a state health care program that you know actually works - is a success Romney refuses to acknowledge because Obama and the Democrats used that program to model their national HCR bill.  And anything Obama supports, the Teabaggers HATE.  And Romney needs those Teabagger votes.
The other thing hurting him is what hurt him most last time: his religion.  As a Mormon he may be as socially conservative and family-oriented as the social/religious conservatives, but they don't view his religion favorably (Far Right Christians view Mormonism as a cult).  Even his speech to pave over his religious views as equal to other Christians didn't help (it hurt that Obama had to speak about his religious positions as well during the Rev. Wright scandal and did a better job of it).  The odds are not good that Romney can win primaries in the Deep South or Appalachian regions.
Chances: If Romney couldn't win over voters in 2008 when it was his primary to lose, how the hell is he going to convince those same voters in 2012?  The only slim chance he has now is that more voters may consider him the safest choice among the whackjobs filling the primaries... but that's what Huckabee is going to do too, and in 2008 Huckabee still did better than Romney.

Donald Trump - Celebrity, New York
Positives: He's good for a laugh, innit he?
Negatives: He's clearly hogging for the spotlight.  His political positions are non-existent, and his going after Obama for his birth certificate quickly made Trump a national laughingstock.
Chances: He's angling for a reality TV show.  Again.

There's your list of madmen and madwomen for the GOP 2012.

Seriously?  It's Huckabee's to lose: he's gotten voters before, and he's had 4 more years to impress the base that he's acceptable.  Given that Huck has the polling numbers to show he has support among general voters, the savvier wingnuts will back him.  Romney is the fall-back option at this point.  Any of the others may be amusing at first, but the seriousness of how disastrous their campaigns could be ought to eliminate them from the primaries well before the circus rolls into South Carolina.

And if a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012?  At this point, the only way to win is a massive collapse of support for Obama, which creates the odds of a GOP House winning even more seats. And possibly the Senate switching to GOP as well.  That would mean the Republicans would regain tight control of all three branches of government again.  If that thought doesn't scare enough moderates to vote Democrat, and if that thought doesn't get enough Democrats to get out the damn vote in 2012, then we ARE WELL AND TRULY SCREWED as a nation.

Don't vote Republican.  Republicans lie.  Republicans deceive.  Republicans hate.

Just.  Don't.  Vote.  Republican.  This is your 192nd Warning.

Read more ...

Some Days The Schadenfreude Ends

Just found out about this three days ago.

Remember ole' Florida Speaker Ray Sansom?  The guy who got caught sneaking appropriation funds for an airport at a small college that would have benefited one of Sansom's buddies?

Well, the trial finally took place... but at a key moment where the prosecution was about to present a witness that could prove a conspiracy, the defense's argument against that witness was sustained by the judge... meaning the witness couldn't testify until the prosecution could prove through other means that there was a conspiracy afoot.

The prosecution couldn't.  The entire case pretty much unraveled and the charges were dropped.

Meanwhile back at the ranch in Tallahassee, our state legislature is passing "reforms" with campaign financing.  They just passed a law re-establishing something called "leadership funds":

If you are an interest group in Florida, a corporation, a lobbyist seeking favor, you go to these "leadership" funds run by lawmakers… And you pay them.  They will launder the money into local elections around the state, to keep electing more obedient followers.
This is so astonishing a corruption that it defies belief.
The bill in question is House Bill 1207, passed in the 2010 legislative session.
Then-Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed it. Last Thursday the Legislature overrode the veto.
The House vote was 81-39. The Senate vote was 30-9.
The twisted logic used in the Capitol, and what your legislator will try to tell you, is that it's better for the Legislature to be paid off directly.
See, they will write it down in a separate little report. So this is all about "informing the public" and "transparency."
If they try to give you this line, just ask this question: "So, is it legal to make unlimited payoffs to 'leadership funds' that are operated directly by the leaders of the Legislature, or not?"
Yes.
People ask: What can I do?
You can call or e-mail. You can go to the House's website (www.myfloridahouse.com) or the Senate's (www.flsenate.gov) and find contact information for your legislator. (I beg you to be firm but civil, especially to the hard-working staff — the world is rude enough already, isn't it?)
But they (The Republicans) are counting on you not to do anything at all.
Instead, here is what they are counting on you to do:
Re-elect them...

Robert Troxler's article is heart-breaking, but it really shouldn't come as a shock anymore.

The Republican Party goes out of its way to claim that they are "fiscally responsible", that they "know business and how to get things done", that they "can create jobs", that they can destroy "the Liberal Agenda of having lazy unemployed people" feed off "our" hard-earned tax dollars.

And then when in power, the Republicans slash corporate taxes, shift the tax burden ever more onto a middle class that can't handle it, cut social services on families and kids already struggling, spend all the other money on vanity projects that don't serve a majority of people, and sign over public-run services to privatized companies run by their old college buddies that will charge more and increase the odds of waste and corruption.  All because they can lie and trick voters into fearing anyone else getting control of the government reins.

And then to make sure their party stays in power they re-write the election laws or pursue questionable practices like twisted gerrymandered districts and voter suppression efforts.

Someone just polled how our nation is becoming "more conservative."  With the Far Right conservatives screwing more and more people out of their jobs and homes and private lives, HOW THE HELL IS THAT POSSIBLE?

Read more ...

Policy of Truth Is Very Much Needed In The U.S.

Lane Wallace, a contributor to The Atlantic, had a recent piece on lying in the media.  The article starts off with the revelation that the Canadian law books has a provision that "A Licensee (media outlet) shall not broadcast ... d) false or misleading news".  There was a recent effort to revise that provision when a Far Right tabloid sought to begin a new news channel "to challenge the mainstream media" which around here sounds like they were trying to start their own Fox-Not-News channel up there.

Wallace's article then considers the impact of if the United States could or would consider such a law here (some snippage):

But the question remains ... why don't we have a similar requirement here in the U.S.? Traditionally, both broadcast radio and television and cable television stations have been subject to regulation, including content regulation, by the FCC. Although that regulation originated from the fact that airwaves were extremely limited, and not accessible to everyone, the regulation continued even after the birth and expansion of cable television, because courts recognized that television and radio are "uniquely pervasive" in people's lives, in a way print media are not... why can't we have a restriction on broadcasting (or cablecasting) false or misleading news?

One reason is probably the same reason the Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. It's laughable now, with the explosion of narrow-interest fringe websites and narrow-audience, right-wing and left-wing cable shows on Fox News and MSNBC, but in the deregulation atmosphere of the 1980s, the FCC's rationale for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine was twofold: first, that the Fairness Doctrine inhibited the broadcasters' right to free speech, and second, that the free market was a better regulator of news content on television than the government. Specifically, the FCC said that individual media outlets would compete with each other for viewers, and that competition would necessarily involve establishing the accuracy, credibility, reliability and thoroughness of each story ... and that over time, the public would weed out new providers that proved to be inaccurate, unreliable, one-sided, or incredible.

One wonders, really, if the FCC had ever studied human behavior or the desire of people to have their individual points of view validated. Far from "weeding out" providers of one-sided, or even incredible information, we now revel in... a selection of news outlets that never ever challenge our particular points of view.

Contrary to the FCC's theory, our particular public seems to reward, rather than punish, outrageous or one-sided news providers. And while that may make each of us feel nice and righteous as we pick and choose our news broadcasters and commentators, one would be hard-pressed to argue that it enhances the quality of our public--or even our personal--discourse.  Especially given the questionable "truth" of many of the statements or inferences made on those highly targeted outlets. In theory, we could all fact-check everything we hear on the TV or radio, of course. But few people have the time to do that, even if they had the contacts or resources...

...Think about it. We prohibit people from lying in court, because the consequences of those lies are serious. That's a form of censorship of free speech, but one we accept quite willingly. And while the consequences of what we hear on television and radio are not as instantly severe as in a court case, one could argue that the damage widely-disseminated false information does to the goal of a well-informed public and a working, thriving democracy is significant, as well. What's more, if we really thought everyone had the right to say whatever they wanted, regardless of truth or consequences, we wouldn't prohibit anyone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater that wasn't actually on fire. We wouldn't have slander or libel laws. We wouldn't have laws about hate speech. And we'd allow broadcasters and cablecasters to air all words and all images, no matter how indecent, at all times. 

Ah. But what if a broadcaster or cablecaster didn't know the information was false? I suppose you could prohibit only knowingly airing false or misleading information. But on the other hand, if a station were at risk for sanction or a license revocation for getting it wrong (even if the FCC rarely enforced the measure), it might motivate reporters and anchors to do a bit more fact checking--and even, perhaps, a bit more research into alternative viewpoints--before seizing on and running with a hot or juicy scoop or angle. 

It's odd, really, that the idea of requiring news broadcasters to be fundamentally honest about the information they project across the nation and into our homes sounds radical. Surely we wouldn't argue that we want to be lied to and misled, would we...?

This is what I wrote in a comment field to Wallace's article.

We make Holocaust denial a criminal offense because it is fraud: historical fraud as well as financial fraud (how much money do those guys make from their followers buying up their books and t-shirts?). We're not making the deniers martyrs: we're identifying them as the criminals they are.

Hate speech is also made up of "false and misleading news." And Hate speech has a tendency to lead into violent action. So we regulate and criminalize Hate speech as well.

Just look at the "debate" over health care. There have been lies aplenty by those opposed to the recent reform act ("Death panels" above all). Check the link to PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Because of the "false and misleading news" about the Health Care Reform efforts, a majority of Americans are mis-informed about the program, don't know that some of the benefits are available now for use, and a sizable number already believe (WRONGLY) that the Health Care bill signed by Obama is already gone. This the damage lying does through the media and through our elected leaders. What the First Amendment defends - the open marketplace of ideas - cannot operate properly when that marketplace of ideas is swamped by falsehoods and frauds.

Holding our media and our elected officials accountable to the truth - Truth Based On Facts, Not Opinion, And Certainly Not On Lies - should go a long way towards cleaning up the mess we are in now.

I've been arguing on this blog for some time that we need a revision of the law - even in the Constitution itself - to spell out once and for all that Lying (or any other form of falsehood) Is Not Protected Speech.  You may get argument about censorship, about the "thought police", stuff like that.  But lies have no place in a nation that's supposed to be based on Truth Justice and the American Way.

Breitbart Delendus Est.

Read more ...

Off-Topic: Things I Learned at MegaCon 2011

I'm posting here because more people follow this blog than my writer/geek blog.

1) The High-Speed Rail between Orlando and Tampa would really help tourism.
Driving on I-4 from the Tampa Bay metro area was stressful and hazardous even in the early morning (before 6 AM).  I left that early because previous experience taught me that parking at the Orlando Convention Center for MegaCon is a nightmare if you get there too late in the day (say, before 10 am).  So I drove early.  And traffic was still bumper-to-bumper the moment I got on I-4.  Even taking I-75 down from where I live to get onto I-4 wasn't as bad: and that part of I-75 is 2-lane traffic, not 3-lane like I-4.
If we had high-speed rail in place, I could get to a parking garage along the rail, pay for the day (money to the state or private operator, cha-CHING), get on the rail, and ride into Orlando and then back again without the worries of traffic.  And if the rail was planned out smartly, there would have been a stop right near the Convention Center well within walking distance (it's right there on the interstate, where the rail would have co-existed).  And if not, then

1a) Orlando (and the whole Tampa metro) would really benefit from a metro-wide light rail system too.
From what I know, most MegaCon attendees are from the Orlando area.  Lacking a light-rail (cable car, elevated monorail, I wouldn't suggest subway because the landmass is sediment-based), all attendees have to come by car or metro bus.  That means massive traffic tie-ups (buses use the same roads after all).  It also means a massive headache trying to find a parking space if you don't get there too early.  So everyone gets there too early.  For now, getting there before 8 AM is decent enough, but at this rate it'll be 7 AM as the prime arrival time within another three years...
Orlando would benefit incredibly from a light-rail metro.  Like most metros that boomed from the Eighties onward, Orlando has huge suburban sprawl.  Connecting the suburbs to key areas - business districts, downtown, sports arenas, and above all THE THEME PARKS (where they work as well as visit!) that dominate the landscape - would go a long way.  College students in particular (UCF, Rollins, et al) would use such a rail system.  Visitors coming in via airport could hop on a rail, circle to a connected hotel, drop off, clean up, and hop back on to ride the rail out to Disney World (which is actually pretty disconnected from Orlando proper.  Only car traffic that I know of can get there, and I've seen how congested the roads in and out of the Magic Kingdom can get.  You'd think Disney would extend that monorail system of theirs out to International Drive or something...).
And this is just from my visiting Orlando for a day to hang out at a comic-con.  The daily use of a metro rail system would be 1) influx of money, 2) jobs, 3) viability of a metropolis to stay connected moreso than with congested car traffic.
I live in the Tampa metro area.  Trust me, a light rail system here connecting our colleges (USF, U.Tampa, St. Pete College) to our downtowns (Ybor party district, St. Pete Baywalk) to our beaches (Clearwater Beach to Ft. DeSoto) to our stadiums (Trop, Ray Jay) to our cultural centers (Tarpon Springs, Safety Harbor, the Dali, Ringling Museum in Sarasota) could go a long way too for both tourism and business.
People will still have cars: as a means of variable long-distance commute it has advantages over a fixed-line rail system.  But the light rail gives them more options.  And again, in a tourist-driven economy like Orlando (and Tampa), it helps business.

Now, onto the business of comicdom.
2) The problem of showing up TOO early for a comic-con?  You stand in line for 2-3 hours crowded with 15,000 other early arrivals waiting for the doors to open.
You know, it wouldn't kill you MegaCon guys to have something going on before the doors open to the main showroom floor: like say have a coffee-donut get-together of geeks in one of the smaller side rooms for panels/events, or get a cosplay group enacting Shakespeare whilst in anime costumes on the foyer floor.  I mean, sheesh, it gets DULL waiting for the doors to open man!

3) I didn't see any overriding costume theme this year.
Previous visits?  In 2009, with Watchmen coming out soon to theaters practically every outfit was Rorshach or Silk Spectre.  In 2010, after the release of Cameron's Avatar, you could swing a catgirl by the tail and hit 100 different guys dressed as Na'Vi.  This year?  Even with the coming of Captain America, X-Men First Class and Thor movies for Marvel, and with Green Lantern for DC (with a Wonder Woman-based TV show in the works, but oh GOD don't get me started on how Hollywood is SCREWING that up), there wasn't one dominant costume.  Yes, there were a handful of Lanterns, and a couple of Captain Americas, but not the huge numbers of Rorshachs I saw two years ago, or the Na'Vi of last year.  If anything, there were a ton of anime characters (especially for girl cosplay).


4) One of the things you see every year at the con: the same actors from cult shows of the Seventies and Eighties at the autograph section.  And that's okay.
Jennie Breeden once wrote it's not an official con until you see Lou Ferrigno there.
Because when you don't see them there, you gotta worry if they're feeling alright... :{
Sometimes there's a lot of fun seeing the recent arrivals you don't normally see, if only because Hollywood made either a sequel or a remake, meaning fan interest will be high on you again.  This year I saw Cindy Morgan on the floor, mostly due to TRON: Legacy coming out this past December (there was some fan outrage the sequel didn't find time or space to include either of her characters Yori or Lora.
Sometimes it's weird to be spying on the celebrities you watched growing up as a teenager, or when you were a younger adult clinging to your geeky ways.  Kevin Sorbo was there: he looked so much thinner than I was used to seeing him.  Gil Gerard from Buck Rogers from the late Seventies was there again.  Last time I saw him he didn't look so good - diabetes - but this year he is thinner and more energetic, so it looks like he's doing well.  Here's hoping.  Erin Grey, I'm convinced, does not age.  Jonathan Frakes was there: his beard had gone gray and his hair... it was just... I mean.  Let's face it: Our heroes get old... so do we...

5) The MegaCon floor planners still do not carve out enough walkway space between vendor pavilions to allow huge fat geeks like me to maneuver easily through the mobs.  It doesn't help that people stop not to shop but to chat with people they've just bumped into.  I know the have to fill the floor with as much merchandise as possible to cover the costs of hosting a con in a huge place like the Orlando Center, but they ought to 1) widen the walkways by another 4-5 ft and consider every third island of booths to have one corner left void for standing room / meet-and-greets.

Oh.  You're here for the pictures.  Okay.

Big pirate boat in the middle of the main hallway leading into the showroom.  There is that Pirates of the Caribbean movie coming out, and the MegaCon covers all geekery: comics, SciFi, anime, fantasy, gaming, and pirates.

 Scottish Stormtrooper.  I had no way to adequately include a photo of his kilt.  The camera kept breaking down from the level of awesome.

 R2D2 working the showroom floor like a pimp.  R2 be comin' yo.

 There is something to be said about how nice it is that girls get into geekdom.

Most people would recognize the lady on my left (your right) as Raven: popular character from the Teen Titans comic and animated show.  The lady on my right is dressed as Yoko Littner from an anime show called Gurren Lagann: If you hadn't heard of it yet, basically it's Studio Gainax's attempt to create a Saturday morning cartoon show.  ...You never heard of Gainax?  Um.  How about FLCL and Evangelion?  ...okay, you need to watch more anime...

 This is Deadpool.  He kills people.  Either for money, or if you said something bad about the TV show The Golden Girls.  Or the slash fic he writes for his favorite show The Golden Girls.

The only reason why I'm still alive is because I told him he needed to find a Rorshach and sing the theme song.  Good thing his attention span is shorter than a centipede's shoestring.

 Jennie.  The Devil's Panties.  Read it.

 The guest speaker for the day was WILLIAM SHATNER and he was there to talk about this self-published book of poetry he wanted to read to us.

This is about as close as I dare get, and the camera I own it's one of those high-end professional cameras with super Zoom and light-source adjustment.  Suffice to say, Shatner looked good but ambled during his presentation in a free-form-thought kind of way.  Also, he threatened the world with more singing.  But it's got ZakK Wylde and Brian May backing him.  What could possibly go wrong?

 I want to end this blog entry by thanking TNC Lost Battalion member bactrain (AKA Ciruce) showing up for a post-convention get-together at Bahama Breeze.  He came with his SO Cecelia, both pictured here.

Sad to say we didn't get more people asking to attend from the OTAN group.  I know one Battalioneer unable to attend, but I had thought we had a few more Floridians on the comments than this... :-(  Still, anyway the Cuban sandwich at Bahama Breeze was pretty good.  Got my Cuban food for the month out of the way.  ;-)

I changed shirts - after walking a crowded convention for most of the day, it was the least I could do - and was wearing the tee for the Lost Battalion gear.  That is what the logo looks like on a tall fat guy.


So: Final thoughts.

Orlando and Tampa need high-speed rail.  Both cities need local metro light rail.  MegaCon needs to have pre-door opening activities.  And they need to widen the walkways a little more.  And you all need to read more webcomics and watch more anime.  Tsk.

Now, back to your originally-scheduled political outrage at your state GOP crooks.

Read more ...