Gold Star Awards, March, 2015

1990:

Joe Morgan's GOLD STAR #73: Thought Catalog

Jim Palmer's PIG IRON STAR: The Return of Kings

One inspires thought, and one inspires naught but revolution and disgust, and both equally worthy of their respective honors.

EDIT: Minor complaint... Thought Catalog really needs a search feature!

Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot! (Or some such thing...)

It's been a rough year so far for Rush. And today he lost another battle in war against people being able to access adequate health care. Well... since every liberal blog should have at least ONE really good Limbaugh-thrashing piece in it, I think he provided me with enough material over the past couple weeks to do one some justice.

Yesterday we got this little chunk of gold from the great gastropod, regarding "liberals":

If we have people who want to take over the government of this country via elections for the purpose of remaking it and eliminating all of the institutions and traditions that made us great, then that's evil to me.

The utter absurdity of this quote will be self-apparent to all of the thinking students in class, but for all the C-students out there (that would be “c” for conservative) let’s break it down...

people who want to take over the government of this country via elections

Well. That IS one way to do it! The other would be to baselessly smear your opponent, via the media, all the while whining about how the media is actually against you, split the vote so finely that you need all seven republican appointees on the supreme court to STOP a recount, as was required by state law, because a proper vote count looks like it might cost you the election. This from the same man that won the narrowest reelection bid in history four years later and called it a “mandate,” remember. So yeah ELECTIONS. What a radical idea. Count ALL the votes to decide who wins. How un-American.

for the purpose of remaking it and eliminating all of the institutions and traditions that made us great

You mean like the separation of church and state and/or an impartial judiciary? Because it certainly seemed to me that REPUBLICANS were trying to “take over the government of this country via elections (albeit rigged) for the purpose of remaking eliminating” THOSE particular institutions which, absolutely, “made us great.” And you’re right: That IS evil.

But, no. Of course he’s not talking about THAT. He talking about President Obama. They guy who won that whole, pesky, election thingy by the widest margin in two decades. (52.9% of the vote! To put that in perspective, Reagan got only 50.7% against Carter in 1980!) Apparently ACORN was able to fraudulently register 7.6 Million new voters. (The widest of victory since Ronald Reagen in 1984, BTW!)

Of course, this kind of high-minded sounding, but heavy handed in actuality, brand of hyperbole is par for the course with all of these guys, but Limbaugh was the first to make it into an art form, and he remains the very best at it. Say you opponent is "destroying institutions that make us great" is an effort to make him look baaaad. Because he knows that none of the mindless sheep lapping up this verbal incontinence will ever ask WHICH “institutions and traditions” are being destroyed, or for any actual evidence of these things even being destroyed, or for evidence that the institution he's referring to (should he name them) were ever part of making us great in the first place. Theirs is not the place to question the great gasbag.

I supposed the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments to the constitution were not among those institutions. Nor the FIRST, at least in any principled way. (Again, remember: He's not talking about Bush now!)

Now for years he's railed against the science that demonstrates how mankind's behavior contributes to Global Warming and Climate Change. Of course, he'd rather give a platform to the industry schills who peddle junk science trying to deny this, using the same tactics, heck the very same language that they did a generation ago for the tobacco industry, long after it was PROVEN that cigarette smoking causes cancer. In his melodramatic rants against "big government" anything that might lead to increased regulations must be WRONG. (You know... FACTS and all not withstanding.) And WHY does he not want 'big government'? Some high-minded libertarian principles? Nah. I wish it were that noble, misguided as it would still be. No. It's really very simple. BIG CORPORATIONS like Republicans, because they're the party that will let BIG CORPORATIONS do whatever they want. (Screw over their workforce, screw over their customers, pollute the environment, sell dangerous products, give people cancer, steal their retirements savings, swindle them out of house and home, deny them health care... YOU NAME IT, THEY DONE IT!) Well... since no rational person, aside for the top 1% of the country that rake in some obscene amount of the wealth by exploiting this system, would ever vote for the modern Republicans (industry whores,) these top 1%'ers knew the needed an every-man to sell their bullshit for them and generate the necessary votes. And they were willing to pay dearly for it. Enter Mister Limbaugh.

For anyone who doubts the extent of the duplicity of this sagging pair of man-boobs (or the extent to which he is factually challenged, for those who don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity) and think I'm exaggerating when I say that he'd still be denying even the reality (let alone the cause) of climate change the day the clouds finally burst into flame, I offer the following, all form the past two weeks:

We are not having food poisoning in this country; it's not happening. These are bunch of busybody people that will not mind their own business, they want to make their business yours, and they are -- these are the kind of people that just irritate the hell out of me.

Riiiiight. We don't need all that big government keeping the food supply safe! You know... never mind the 200,000 people a year that actually get sick, the 900 that are hospitalized and the 14 that die every year in this country, on average, from food-bourne illness according to the CDC. I mean, who trusts all that liberal DATA from those bog government agencies anyway? You see, in Rush's warped mind, if the regulations were relaxed the companies would have more money left over to keep our food safe with! See how that works?

Now, I'm going to go back a few months for this next one:

There really isn't a crisis in health care in this country. The crisis in health care that -- if you wanna say, that does exist -- is the fear that a major illness or catastrophe could wipe you out, which isn't gonna change. In fact, the odds of you being wiped out by a catastrophe or accident once the government gets started running this stuff is greater than if the private sector -- but day-to-day, there's no health care crisis in this country. You can get it.

Again, the 45,000 people who die every year from preventable illness due to lack of access to health care might disagree with you. Well... their next of kin will anyway. (Dick.) That's up from just 18,000 only a few years ago, so it's mounting. That's out of 40,000,000 uninsured and otherwise uncovered of course, and in addition to the 65,000 that don't DIE, but instead go bankrupt from their medical bills. Oh yeah... 75% of whom HAD this great "private sector" health care that this corporate street walker is harping on about. But hey: He's paid millions of dollars a year to spread this coprophage, so I have to admit: He's not lying. From HIS point of view, everything's fine. (Cocksucker.)

"You'll be healthier [if you don't listen to the government...] I'm not seeing these mass deaths from the swine flu. ... All I see is a bunch of typical government panic and hype."

Only 982 deaths so far, so not too bad. Of course there been over 55,000 confirmed cases so far, resulting in 7,600 hospitalizations. But don't worry: There's plenty of health insurance to go around, so whatever you do, DON'T get vaccinated. (You know... because the government says you should.) Personally, I think you'll be healthier if you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

And now you got Kathleen Sebelius saying you must take the pig flu vaccine. You must take it. Screw you, Ms. Sebelius! I am not going to take it, precisely because you're now telling me I must. It's not your role, it's not your responsibility, and you do not have that power. I don't want to take your vaccine.

I'm not sure how he concludes that it's not the role of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make recommendations about vaccinations, but you know what? I'm glad he's not getting vaccinated. I hope every one of the men and women who listen to this assbag also forego vaccination. And I hope that a good number of them DIE, and the ones that remain learn their lesson and stop listening to these no-talent ass clowns.

Between their public health policies and their foreign polices I can't believe there's anyone left in this apparently daft country who hasn't concluded that these assholes are going to get us all killed... JUST TO MAKE A BUCK!

Now THAT'S what I call evil!

Our messed up priorities...

No Friday Fun Vid's today. Just a little blurb on our misplaced priorities as a society, that I was thinking about today with some co-workers...

Did you know: The minimum salary for a Major League Baseball player is $390,000?

Did you know: The median income for a Surgeon is around $150,000 to $300,000 depending on years of experience and specialty?

Now... I'm not suggesting here that baseball payers are overpaid. They're not. (Really! They really aren't!) (I'm serious!) Ticket prices are not high because of their salaries. If you think that, then you don't know the slightest bit about microeconomics. In fact, it's completely the other way around: Their salaries are high because tickets prices (and the prices for merchandise, TV contracts, etc...) are high. And THOSE are high for ONE REASON ONLY: We (as a people) keep showing that we are willing to pay those prices and more.

Now granted, most of us cannot do what these baseball players can do. No matter how long I train, I can't hit a home-run out of a major-league field, or throw a 100 mph fastball. I CAN however HIT a ball (at ~85mph) well into the outfield and throw a pretty good curve and an occasional knuckleball, when I get it right. On the other hand... I pretty much completely suck at surgery. I'm afraid that if I've got your life in one hand and a scalpel in the other? You. Are. Going. To. Die. So... which one's really harder to do? And what's more intrinsically valuable to society? (Oh yeah... and I should mention... If you're making $390,000 playing baseball? Chances are, YOU can't hit too many balls out of the park or throw 100 mph either!)

So think got me thinking about other things... because my mind tends to wander when I'm bored... and it was a quiet day at the office...

I THINK it was Jimmy Carter, speaking about the war drugs, who said something along the lines of this...: That the LEGAL penalty for the possession and use of illegal drugs should not be more excessive than the real harm that can be done to you by those drugs. IOW - the most dangerous things about any vice that the gov't wants to protect us from should NOT be the legal consequences of engaging in it.

So, from that POV...

The maximum punishment for smoking weed should be something equivalent to the forced consumption of Twinkies. But at the moment the worst thing by far about weed are the legal penalties attached to it: To protect me from the horrors of marijuana the government will do more damage toi my life than weed ever could!

Later I saw a story about teen sexting. (Texting naked pictures of themselves.) And these KIDS are being charged with DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY! Now... I'm not advocating teen sexting, any more than I'm advocating smoking weed (and I'm not!) but it seems to me that far more damage is being done here by the LAW than by the activity they're trying to protect THESE VERY SAME KIDS from!!! I mean: WHO IS THE VICTIM OF THIS CRIME?!

So going back to the previous thought... I'm thinking that the worst penalty possible for sexting should be maybe having to walk naked through the town square or something like that. Because that's the extent of the damage done here: Some people will see you naked. BIG. DEAL. (I'm of course talking only about people who sent out pics of themselves, and not pics that were taken in violation of someone's privacy. I hope that much is obvious. I'm a privacy advocate, and THAT kind of violation has a victim.)

Then I thought... Hmmmm... Using the very same principle, that the punishment should be less harmful that the vice, I realized that anything up to and including the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for failing to wear your seat belt.

But just try to get 1% of the passionate outrage that people have over marijuana or naked teenagers applied to seat belt usage! And compare the penalties! No one ever DIED because they sent out a naked pic of themselves, or saw one of someone else and when you come right down to it, nobody really dies from marijuana either. (Far less than from perfectly legal cigarettes, anyway!) And yet hundreds of people die every day from not wearing their seat belts!

What kind of society are we that wastes so much time and energy, and causes so much damage to the lives of the very people we're trying to protect, protecting them from weed and porn... But could truly care less about one of the most dangerous activities you can engage in?

I guess the same kind of that pays the worst baseball player in the league more that the best surgeon in the business.

My Position on Abortion

OK, First things last... What's with all the Right-Wing advertising on this site?! First I had to look at Ann Coulter's ugly mug, now it's Campus Reform and their "End Left Wing Bias in the Classroom!" (Yeah, I mean GOD FORBID we do any THINKING about things like FACTS in the CLASSROOM! If that happens, 98% of the Republican voter base might come their senses and stopping voting that way! The horror!) Anyway, I couldn't care less, actually. Let 'em advertise here. It just means that THEY are paying ME to make fun of THEM. Kinda cool how that works, huh? LOL. So please feel free to visit any of my numerous right-wing sponsors. Make sure to tell 'em "Niceguy Eddie" sent you! LOL. HAHAHA!


OK... ABORTION.


Up front, let me say that this is nothing more than a statement of my position. There's no arguments here, no attempt to convince anyone, and no logical philosophical proofs - like what I had in the ESCR thread. This is just my OPINION. Yes, it happens to be what I think is he most reasonable position; the "way [to borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh] things ought to be," if you will. And, JUST LIKE Rush in, "The Way Things Ought to Be," I'm not going to make much of an effort to explain WHY they "ought to be" that way. I'm just going to put it out there, and then hear y'all have to say.


One thing I'd like to clear up first... PRO-LIFE vs. PRO-CHOICE. This is, as every liberal already knows, a completely bullshit way to define one's position. I've never met ANYONE who I could reasonably describe as ANTI-LIFE or PRO-DEATH or even PRO-ABORTION. This isn't a moral debate - everyone I've ever met concedes the point that it's immoral; that's it's arguably the worst possible choice. The debate is not about it's morality, but rather about how to define it's LEGALITY. IOW: Does I feel the need to take away SOMEONE ELSE'S right to make a choice, just because I FEEL a certain way about it? Is it any of my business? No, not at all. (Not that that ever stopped social conservatives from sticking their nose into other people's business!) So there's really only ONE WAY to define the camps: PRO-CHOICE and ANTI-CHOICE. "Pro-life" is a bullshit label and the fact that it has caught on is yet one more piece of evidence against the existence of the "liberal media." (If you want more, you can read THIS, or just check out MMFA.) And, as anyone who has read my Doctrine of Choice post (or know about my 5th principle,) should be able to infer: While I strongly believe that abortion is, in fact, immoral, I am PRO-CHOICE.


Here's how I would set it up. (And yes, I realize that there are both conservatives and liberals who will disagree with a lot of this. That's fine.)


1) Partial-Birth Abortion is banned. Period. If one of you is an MD and can give me a clear example of when this would be NECESSARY to save a mother's life - that's NECESSARY now, not PREFERABLE - then I'll reconsider. What's more, I would ban all third trimester abortions anyway or, if you prefer, since trimesters are kind of arbitrary, all abortions after the earliest point of viability unless the mother's LIFE (that's LIFE, not HEALTH) is in danger, and this threat to her life cannot be averted via a Cesarean Section delivery. (And don't bring up the ectopic pregnancy example here, because if you let one of those go to this far, the mother will already be dead! Those have to be dealt with RIGHT AWAY! So they don't apply at this point!)


2) In the Second Trimester, (or from the beginning of it until the point of viability if you want to go that way, I'm flexible there) abortion will be permitted if there is a threat to the HEALTH of the mother. We can quibble about how broad or narrow to make this, of course, but the guiding principle in the second trimester is that there must be a diagnosable, documented threat to the mother's HEALTH. And if this were made into law, I would have those specific conditions listed out. The debate can then shift to what belongs on the list and what doesn't. Obviously anything that can KILL YOU goes on it, but things like depression, for example, which are more sympathetic than fatal, or like high-blood pressure, which is usually addressed with bed-rest can be debated. (And I know how lousy bed-rest is - my wife dealt with it for about the last five months or so. It sucks. In and of itself though, it is not a justification for abortion, IMHO. Not unless it can't be controlled that way.)


3) In the first trimester, there will be no restrictions placed on abortion at all. Abortion by choice, therefore, MUST be a decision that is made NOW. It's a tough decision, I realize, but the clock ticks very fast, and if you're considering an abortion, it's time to get your shit together and make a choice. The area gets grey VERY FAST, and no one can look at a 10-week ultra sound and tell me that's not a BABY:


So I'd let you have the choice, but you don't have all the time in the world to make it. Just a few weeks really, since most people are already several weeks along by the time they find out. What's more: No exceptions for rape or incest are needed, since these can be dealt with in the first trimester, without need for such justifications.

Just as an aside: Why do we say, "rape or incest" anyway? If the "incest" was not consensual, isn't just a more specific form of rape? If it was consensual, then why would a "pro-lifer" allow an exception for it? Is an embryo OK to destroy provided that it's conception was sufficiently icky? And, if one wants to be truly principled about this, why should any pro-life position allow for these exceptions? If you believe that an embryo is a child, and abortion murder, then tell me: What did the child do to deserve to be killed? This is why I'm basically pro-choice. Because there is no principled, logically consistent pro-life position that any moderate person can stomach, or that voters (outside of South Dakota) would approve of. "Rape or Incest" exception are a pro-lifers cop-out to appeal to moderate people. But make no mistake: These are PRO-CHOICE exceptions. So, as I said before, it's not about PROTECTING LIFE, it's about LIMITING CHOICE. So "Pro-Life" is, again, a bullshit label. "Anti-Choice" is the only moniker we should use.

Abortion vs. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I said in my last (real, non-Friday Fun) post that I would do a piece on ABORTION. And I will. But not just yet.

I'd like to do a bit on EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH first, because the two issues often get conflated and IMHO they are completely different. What’s more, to demonstrate this, I will offer a simple proof which shows you can go as far as prohibiting ALL abortions and yet still allow ESC research completely unrestricted AND do this in a logically consistent, principled way. (Completely banning all abortions IS NOT my position, BTW, but the point of this is to demonstrate that being “pro-life”, regardless of how strongly you feel about it, simply does not enter into the ESC debate at all.)

One last thing, before I get into the proof. I am not, and do not claim to be, approaching this issue from a completely objective POV. This is a highly personal issue for me, and I feel that I should disclose that right up front. I have two sons with Autism. And while Autism is not one of the disorders that you hear about very often with regards to the promises of ESC research, and while I am very realistic about the fact that in the unlikely chance that ESC research finds anything to help autistics, it will likely come far to late to have a huge impact of THEIR lives, I am still part of that community. And I am sympathetic to their POV. And many of them DO see this as promising research. It does not drive my entire philosophy on this, of course, but I think it’s important to disclose up front that I DO kind of have a dog in this fight.

Now… ON TO THE PROOF:

First off, we need to define terms:

1) UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON LIFE: OK. Obviously there must be a line drawn on one end of the spectrum that represents a milestone in which EVERYONE (other than metaphysical philosophers and certified sociopaths) agrees that we have full-fledged human life, and that the entity in question is ABSOLUTELY entitled to ALL legal protections that the law provides. Although there’s always some nutter who'll will quibble about this, to keep things simple we’ll take this to be a live birth. This is the point in time after which we agree there is NO DEBATE, from ANYONE, that this LIFE must be protected. (Note: Henceforth if I refer to “life” THIS is the condition I am talking about!)

2) POTENTIAL LIFE: Here’s where the compromise comes in. “Potential Life” represents everything between the point in which the potential for life begins until we reach the milestone of "universally agreed upon life." It is a concession to the liberal camp to acknowledge the existence of this grey area. In what is a HUGE concession to the conservatives, we’re going to go ahead and agree that ANY AND ALL potential life will receive EVERY LEGAL PROTECTION that “LIFE” does. So, while we don’t accept the “life begins at conception” theory, we WILL extend every legal protect potential life that we do to life. That should satisfy the conservatives moving forward, correct? Good.

3) POTENTIAL: This is the key. And this is where the real test lies. POTENTIAL, relative to LIFE, means that, left on it’s own, we’re dealing with an entity that, given nothing but time (traditionally around nine months, give or take) has a GREATER THAN ZERO PERCENT chance of developing into universally agreed upon life. NOTICE: I did not say 100% chance, 10% or even 1%. I’ve given the conservatives the most generous threshold I can: Greater than ZERO. So if there is ANY CHANCE AT ALL, as long as it’s not IMPOSSIBLE, that we will, at some point in the future have universally agreed upon life, we will extend ALL LEGAL PROTECTIONS to that entity? We game so far? Good.

SO NOW… THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: What is the earliest point in which we can establish the POTENTIAL for LIFE and thus be obligated to protect that entity?

Obviously this line will be drawn well before BIRTH. So we’re not even looking at TRIMESTERS here or anything even like that. Save that for the ABORTION debate. Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum...

Let’s start by applying this logic to the earliest possible entitles: Individuals sperm and egg cells. (Just to test it.) I think it is apparent to all but the most insanely devout Catholics (meaning: limited primarily to the non-pedophilic priesthood) that there is simply no anyone will argue that individual sperm and egg cells can ever, EVER, become “life” on their own. So we all agree that their potential is “zero,” and thus most ration peoples views regarding contraception, masturbation, IVF, surrogate/sperm donation, research, etc... So those (and most rational peoples' views on such matters) both pass the test, and thus the the test WORKS, in this case.

NOW… let’s look at EMBRYO’S; the sperm / egg combination. Potential? Perhaps. Immediately, at CONCEPTION? No. That’s right, I said: NO. Not one bit. Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for an embryo to develop into “life.” Won’t happen…

Until…

IMPLANTATION. That’s right, folks! Until the embryo is implanted in the uterine wall, it's chance on developing into universally agreed upon life is exactly: ZERO. Thus the appropriate milestone at which the POTENTIAL for life is established is thus IMPLANTATION, not conception! What sane person can argue otherwise? Whether the embryo is frozen in hydrogen, swimming in a Petri dish, sitting on a counter-top, being flushed down the toilet or for that mater ANYWHERE in the physical or anti-matter universerse OTHER that implanted in the uterine wall it WILL NOT become LIFE. Period. Not in nine months, not in a million years. It will NEVER be anything other than what it is, and if not frozen in hydrogen, after a fairly short time even the cells themselves will simply die. Since ESC Research take place BEFORE implantation, the is no rational reason that this research should be taboo. (How can you have LIFE if you don't even have POTENTIAL?!)

Bottom line: We can argue that the ABORTION line be drawn anywhere between IMPLANTATION and BIRTH, but there is just no reason to draw the line any farther back than IMPLANTATION. (Did you know: PRIOR to implantation, you body shows no signs of pregnancy, is not aware of the embryo’s presence and no pregnancy test in the world can detect it? So how COULD you have an abortion if no one, every your own body, can detect the pregnancy?!) Concepcion is an irrelevant milestone. Until implantation, as far as I’m concerned, the debate doesn’t even begin.

Embryonic Stem-Cell research should thus:
1) Be completely legal and without restriction. (Come on! Grow a set Barack!)
2) Be federally funded, just as most other medical research is.
3) Only have restriction placed based on it to make sure that the limited resources (embryos, money) be used for the best possible projects. We don’t need ESC research looking for the next big thing in lip gloss.

As for ABORTION… Well, according to this we can debate all the way back to implantation, which still cover any and all abortions. (Sorry Lib’s!) But the point here was to separate the two issues, not to ban abortion. So we can take that one up in the next post!

--- ... ---

(And, BTW... for all you shade-tree economists out there, that diddy on Keynes is still coming! I didn’t forget. But it’s been on and off the back burner for a little while now… so it’s not ready just yet. It’s coming though! Important stuff! LOL.)

The Doctrine of Choice

(I'm still working on Keynes, so here's some more brain droppings of mine) (Thanks George!)

The Doctrine of Choice is a pompous name that I've given to a very simple idea that guides my legal, moral and political philosophy more than anything else. At it's simplest it is this: People should be allowed to do whatever they provided that they're not harming anyone else.

A lot of people CLAIM that's what they believe, but I bet they'll fail the test on more than one thing, and on many things if they're a social conservative. Stated a little more specifically it goes like this:

1) Everything is legal, unless it victimizes someone else. To be a crime, something MUST have a victim. (And no, "Society," doesn't count. A tangible victim.)

2) The threshold for someone being a victim is for them have a choice they are otherwise entitled to usurped or taken form them by another.

Now... #2 may sound a bit odd, but it's actually a very low threshold for crime when you think about it. Does someone have to be killed, receive bodily harm, lose a certain amount of monetary valuables? Well, those WOULD qualify, but I set the bar pretty low. All they have to lose is their choice. Now you'd think that setting the bar for crime so low, that I'd end up outlawing many more things than the social conservatives would. But the opposite is true. So let's test this system, first against some easy ones...

MURDER

When you and I woke up this morning, we had a clear choice to make. Face another day, or slit our own throats. Putting the drama aside, obviously, most of us, on most days will choose the first option. But if someone comes along and SHOOTS me? They are taking my LIFE, yes, but they really only need to be usurping MY CHOICE (to live) for this to be crime. (The ADDITIONAL loss of a LIFE is really only relevant to the SENTENCING portion!)

THEFT

I can do whatever I want with MY [after-tax] MONEY. Buy stuff, lend it to a friend, invest it, put it in the bank, give it to a homeless guy, burn it... WHATEVER I WANT. But if someone, say the guy from the previous example, were to STEAL my money, well... That's tantamount to making the decision fore me: and the decsion was forced to give the money to him. Regardless of how much I've lost, it's all a crime because the choice was MINE, and he usurped it.

RAPE

I can have sex with whomever* I* want*, and I can abstain as I wish as well. But someone who's raping me, say, again that slimeball from the last two examples, is saying, "No. It's not YOUR choice, it's MINE. And I SAY, you're going to have sex with ME!"

*Point of clarification: CHOICE in this case DOES imply CONSENT on the part of all parties involved. And CONSENT implies all parties are legal, [human] adults. All parties must be legally able to GIVE consent, which rules out both animals and the underaged. In each case, we do not recognize consent, and a choice is thus usurped still.

So... You get the idea. Here are some more knotty ones...

FRAUD is a crime because it means that the person's choice was not INFORMED. You have usurped the choice in this way by withholding information that otherwise may have resulted in a different choice. In anyway they've been cheated of their choice.

SOME DRUGS remain illegal, but not all. To qualify as a controlled substance something must be both synthetic (meaning that it is consumed in a form that has been chemically altered from it natural form) and addictive. Addictive is important, because addiction is what represents the usurpation of choice here. NOW... the CRIME is on the part of the DEALER. Why you ask, when the USER in fact CHOSE to use drugs? Very simple. It's a case of unbalanced information. Prior to becoming addicted the user has no REAL idea, no real information about how horrible addiction is, what it REALLY does to every aspect of your life and how likely he is to even become an addict. And most who are or have been addicted would have made different choices had they had the first hand knowledge of these things back when they started, but they didn't. How could they know? But the DEALER? HE's got a pretty shrewd idea what's in store for his customers. He peddling addiction via fraud. So anyone dealing addictive synthetic substances (crystal meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, opium, ecstasy, roofalin) is going down. But Tobacco, marijuana, coca leaves, betel nut, 'shrooms... it's all good, baby. They occur in nature, and you just can't outlaw something that's ALREADY THERE, on it's own. If we didn't invent it, how the hell can we outlaw it? REGULATE it? Sure. (18 and over only.) TAX it? You best your asterix. But why throw someone in jail who picked something up off the ground and chowed down or smoked it? No reason to. None at all.

The exception, and it should be obvious at this point, is Alcohol. I say: grandfather it in, and leave it legal. I have no justification for this in my model, other than the fact that it is consumed in moderation without issue (even some health and social benefits) buy almost everyone on the planet. So we'll draw the line HERE, and outlaw anything ELSE that fails the above tow tests.

Also... I say controlled, rather than illegal, becasue I still wouldn't outlaw those other thigns. Should we find that their is some medical use for them, in some small, safe dose? I won't let the law in the way of the medical research. And before you scoff, you should realize that most presciption anti-despreseant and pain-killers are checially very similar to many narcotics. Paxil is almost identical to cocaine in structure but also in the effect it has on the brain. It's just kept in a REALLY SMALL does - miligrams being swallowed insetad of grams being snorted. But you CAN get hooked if you abuse prescription medicinces. Just ask Rush Limabugh.

Now for some tricky ones:

GAMBLING

As long as the game is fair, meaning not FIXED, and everyone understands the rules and the odds? (IOW no fraud involved) Why the hell not? Just regulate it to insure fairness, the way we do today in places that allow it, and keep it to certain ZONES in a given town or city. No one wants a Casino in their NEIGHBORHOOD, but downtown, or on the outskirts? Why not. Let each town decide for themselves. No reason for the STATE or FED to say no.

PROSTITUTION

As the now immortal George Carlin once pointed out: Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? Again I don't care WHAT goes on between consenting adults and neither does out current system of law enforcement... until money changes hands. WTF? Why should THAT matter?! You name me ONE OTHER THING that's it's legal to GIVE AWAY but illegal to SELL and I'll take it all back. But IMHO prostitution is NO CRIME. And thus should be LEGAL.

REGULATED, to be sure. And this is actually the BEST way to address the (faux) concerns that people, usually conservatives, express for the workers in the trade and use as justification for criminalizing it. Disease? Require (and have employers pay for) regular check-ups and condom use to keep your license. (Yes, you'd need a license! How else could you regulate it?!) Customer don't want to pay? Legal contract: Girl can SUE. Assault? Not likely if it all takes place inside the brothel, which has bouncers. This also addresses the next concern: We don't want hookers soliciting on the street, in the neighborhood, at the schools, etc... Well, just like with the casinos, this is merely a ZONING issue. Discreet advertising, discreet signage, and an off-the-beaten-path location, should satisfy any reasonable person involved. We'll never make it into an admirable profession, but there's just no rational justification for criminalizing it.

DRUNK DRIVING

This includes ALL forms of intoxication, not just alcohol, so don't bother using DRIVING as an argument for criminalizing cannabis. That's just stupid. You can't drive drunk, high, low, or whatever. Stay home or call a cab. Why? Because everyone else on the roads made their choice to drive assuming it was safe. Or at least that weren't any reckless drunks out there, bombing around, which is as the law promises them. Plus you have no right to risk anyone ELSE'S life, other than your own. So it's simple. This fails the test.

HOMOSEXUALITY / GAY MARRIAGE

See 'prostitution.' As for the marriage part... again WHY THE HELL NOT? Show me any other legal contract ANYWHERE that I can enter with a member of the opposite sex, but not the same. There isn't one. And as far as the LAW is concerned with marriage that's all it is: a LEGAL CONTRACT. So if you have a problem with this one, all I can say is, "GROW UP."

RELIGION - The meaning of religious freedom should be obvious, and I'm stunned how many people try to say otherwise: (1) the separation of church and state. The above doctrine (as an interpretation of our Constitution) should drive our laws, not religion. PERIOD. (2) The prohibitions of any religion shall only apply to it's VOLUNTARY adherents. (So, "No" to these idiotic Catholic (etc...) pharmacists who won't dispense Birth Control. The church forbids YOU to use it. It has no authority over anyone else, and neither do YOU.) And anyone can leave any church at any time. (3) That also means no teacher-lead prayer in school. This violates YOUR choice to bring you child up in a given faith. Don't care about respecting OTHER PEOPLE'S faiths? Well what if the teacher was Muslim**? THEN would you want them preaching to your child or leading them in prayer? Didn't think so. Freedom for ANY ONE, necessarily means freedom for ALL, as well as the right to NOT believe or practice as well. It's pretty simple and, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident. I'll never get why so many people can't understand this. (And don't be an idiot an think this means that NO ONE can pray in school. THAT would be a obvious violation of their right to practice, which IS and WILL REMAIN 100% proteted. Only teacher-lead prayer in banned!)

**I ask it this way, because in THIS country, it's usually the CHRISTIAN funny-mentalists who don't get it. If we were having this discussion in IRAN, obviously I'd say "Christian" instead of "Muslim" in the above example.

Anyhow, THIS is how I interpret the spirit of the Constitution, and the Rights it grants. This is how I define FREEDOM and LIBERTY. The only laws that are needed would those that arbitrate situation in which one person choices would usurp another's. And it's usually pretty clear in these cases who's right and wrong. Except one.

There is one issue that this philosophy is USELESS to make any headway on.

Abortion.

Because abortion (arguably) involves two entities, both of whom may or may not be having a choice usurped. And one side clearly believes that the rights of one win out, while the other just a clearly believe it's the rights of the other. And you know what? I'm not sure there a "win" here either way. I just don't see this as anything other than lose-lose one way of the other.

So I'll cop-out on this one, but I promise to take up abortion at a later date. I might actually surprise some of you conservatives with my views on abortion, but I'm sure you'll come away disappointed anyway. LOL. The thing is... so will many liberals! You just can't WIN an argument over abortion!

If you are curious how I would interpret any other, just let me know. So far I've never been stumped. (Other than abortion, attmitedly.)

My 36 Principles

I'm working on something that will explain Keynesian Macroeconomic theory to everyone, but I'm going to need a few days to pull it all together. SO in the meantime, here's some mental dandruff of mine...

Niceguy Eddie's 36 Principles

This was inspired by that subhuman gasbag, Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths. If you've never heard of them, google it. They're basically "principles" that drive his "philosophy." (Notice the quotes?) Some are just humorous, a few are surprisingly reasonable, and a rather a few are completely ludicrous. (And not a one of them is really an "Undeniable Truth.")

But it got me thinking that I should try and draw up 35 "undeniable truths" (or principals) that sum up my life's philosophy. I ended up with 36 because IMHO, you're basically barely even a human being if you don't operate with more principles than Rush Limbaugh!

So here are mine. Just as with his the order is not important and each one is as equally true and as important as the next. These are all points that I hold as true. But for now I'll just state them simply and not elaborate. If you have any questions, or want to debate any in greater detail, just let me know. I'll always oblige. :)

1) There is no sin worse than hypocrisy.

2) As Corporate Taxes are always a portion/fraction of profit, it is mathematically impossible to tax a company into the red.

3) The separation of church and state is necessary for the protection of both. (And inherently good for all.)

4) Sustainability is inherently good. (4a - Sustainability is required for any idea to be "good".)

5) Having choices is inherently good. (Not every choice will always be a good one, however!)

6) Accurate information and data is inherently good.

7) The scientific method is inherently good.

8) In a secular society, people of goodwill will do good in accordance with their better nature, and evil people will act according to their vices. But to make an inherently good person do truly evil things, you must first make them religious. (Stolen from Christopher Hitchens.)

9) Individual freedom and liberty is inherently good.

10) There can be no crime committed without demonstrable harm. The minimum threshold of demonstrable harm is defined as the usurpation of a choice belonging to another. (And I will elaborate on my 'doctrine of choice' at a later time, for sure!)

11) Movies, music, video games, popular culture, pornography, etc… do not make people do bad things. People have choices. Hold them accountable and stop trying to ban or censor all of my favorite movies, music, video games, pornography, etc…

12) Japanese animation is superior to American animation. (And pretty much all American Television for that matter.) Addendum: Akira Kurosawa is the greatest filmmaker that ever lived. (Hey, Rush had one about the Steelers in the late 1970's being the greatest football team ever, so I can have this one!)

13) Even the most vile, evil people, books and ideas should not be banned. They should be studied, so that evil is easier to recognize. Mein Kampf should be required reading for every high school student in America – so that we are better able to identify Fascism and bigotry when it tries to disguise itself.

14) "Hate Speech" should not even be discouraged. This is the easiest way to identify the ignorant.

15) All forms of magical thinking, including religious dogma, are inherently bad.

16) All of the truths we cling to are dependent on our point of view.

17) It is not hypocrisy to judge intolerance harshly. Nor is it hypocrisy to wish someone to get a taste of their own medicine.

18) Zero-Tolerance policies are always inherently bad. (That's the only one that isn't!)

19) Fines, penalties, etc… should never be viewed as "revenue streams." The purpose of these should only ever be to discourage the behavior that leads to them. Speeding Tickets, Late Fees, etc... should never be viewed as a "good thing" by anyone, even those collecting them.

20) The purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court is to act as a counterbalance to legislative and executive power by striking down laws that are too harsh, or unnecessarily curtail our freedom. A liberal supreme court will usually do this. A conservative supreme court will almost never do this.

21) We elect presidents, we do not serve kings. Politicians answer to the people.

22) It is immoral for a business to operate at a loss. (You read it right! Let me know if you need this one explained.) ;)

23) It is immoral to make a profit without either assuming some risk or contributing some intrinsic value.

24) It is inherently immoral to accept (or pursue) a power you would not give to your rival, or to enact a restriction on them that you would not accept placed upon yourself. (And yes, this includes the [Democratic] Massachusetts State Legislature who took the power to appoint replacement senators AWAY from Governor Mitt Romney (R) when Senator Kerry (D) won the 2004 nomination, but Restored it to Governor Duval Patrick (D) upon the death of Senator Kennedy (D) just recently. The two acts, taken together, violate this BIG TIME. And no, it ain't cool.)

25) If it's bad when "they" do it, then it's bad when you do it.

26) There is wisdom in pacifism… but it won't win in a fight.

27)Criminal drug laws need only apply to substances that are (1) synthetic and (2) physically addictive. Because (1) you can't outlaw what God/nature created, only what man creates. And (2) addiction is a usurpation of choice. (See (10)) (And don't tell me about "habit forming." Snicker bars are "habit forming" for Christ's sake! I could (hypothetically) easily give up pot before I could give up Snicker bars!)

28) All rules of logic apply to all arguments. Know them, or you'll sound like an idiot to anyone who knows the difference.

29) Life is not fair, because chance is involved. All man-made systems, however, should be designed to be as fair as possible.

30) Peaceful coexistence is inherently good.

31) ALL resources are limited.

32) In business (and in many other situations in life) there are three things you can choose from: GOOD, FAST and CHEAP. The thing is: YOU CAN ONLY EVER PICK TWO!

33) You can't cheat the law of conservation of energy / first law of thermodynamics.

34) Play and fun are inherently good.

35) True competition (meaning FAIR competition) is inherently good.

36) These statements (and all others like them) are opinions, not facts. And they cannot be elevated to fact regardless of how widely they are held, or how deeply they are believed.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm feeling lazy and really only wanted to one-up Limbaugh. But if you're ever in a debate with me and want to really stick it to me, find me violating one of these principles. Either I'll be forced to concede the point, or I'll be doing some serious spin, baby! LOL!

The Laws of Human Stupidity

I promised yesterday that I'd explain what I meant when I called poor whites who vote republican, "stupid." Now, some of you may not think it needs an explanation, LOL, but I can assure you that's not what I'm talking about! "Stupid" often has a very specific meaning when I use it, and this is one of those times.

To understand fully, first you have to read THIS. Don't worry it's only about 3 or 4 pages, with illustrations, and it's a really fun read anyway. If you want to skip to the part that's relevant to this discussion, go to the THIRD (AND GOLDEN) BASIC LAW section. Read at least that, and maybe the FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION part as well.

Now... There are four quadrants: Intelligent, Helpless, Bandit and Stupid. Here's how I see the political spectrum breaking down...

At their best, Liberals are intelligent. They pursue policies that benefit others and do so because they recognize that it will come back to benefit themselves. This is why, for example, they support labor unions and minimum wage increases. Other people benefit will make better wages, which in turn supports consumption, which in turn benefits everyone else. (This is the basic idea behind Keynesian Economics, which I'll have to explain at some point, because it's fascinating stuff, and most 'fiscal conservatives' have absolutely no idea how any of [macroeconomics] works.)

At their worst, one could say that the Liberal might act helplessly. After all, he might accept higher taxes (hurts himself) and the benefit (of increased spending) just might not work it way back to him. While this does not follow the laws of economics, we're assuming the worst case.

Now take the Conservative. The rich conservative clearly belongs in the Bandit quadrant. Between tax cuts for the rich, destroying labor unions, their desire to deregulate industries that act like THIS... it's clear that the rich conservative is in it for himself, and cares little how much others are harmed. The motto of these guys is, "I've got mine, screw the rest of you." Grab the money and run.

So why would I conclude that the working class conservative/Republican would be in the 'stupid' quadrant? (Besides process of elimination! LOL) Well first off, he support polices - the very ones I named above - that screw him over financially. Free trade, no unions, no minimum wage, lax labor laws, lax regulatory policies, no social safety nets... There's really nothing in the conservative agenda that helps the workin' man. So why do all these salty white guys keep voting Republican?! (No, it's not racism!) (Shame on you!) It's for the sake of SOCIAL conservatism. Basically? Religion. No abortions, no gay marriage, and for that matter no right to die, no legalized pot, no porn, no heavy metal/rap/rock-n-roll/dancing/etc, no this, no that... They vote that way because they think Republicans will force everyone to pray and live a good, clean Christian life, and eliminate all manner of harmless vice in the name of family values. (Now excuse me while I go vomit.)

OK... first off, YEAH RIGHT! Secondly, there's that whole 1st amendment, church and state, thing. Thirdly, of course, is their asinine assumption that anyone outside of their particular brand of medieval superstition actually thinks that everyone living that kind of life would even be a good thing; that anyone else would actually want to live in such an uptight, boring world.

But just look at from the standpoint of the stupidity argument laid out in Dr. Cipolla's article: They support economic policies that harms themselves, just so they can take away rights and freedoms from other people, thus harming them.

My friends? That's the DEFINITION of stupid.

Acorn Nuttiness...

"I ain't afraid of Acorn... I've got squirrels!"

~Niceguy Eddie

And, OK... not the most original post title, I'll admit it.

Ever since then Senator Obama won the nomination, we've been hearing a lot about ACORN. And, for the most part, what we've heard is nonsense from the Right trying to convince us that Acorn is a dangerous, subversive, criminal, fraudulent, traitorous, communist/socialist/fascist/etc... organization who's primary goal is to destroy America.

So... What's the deal?

OK. First off, it is important to understand that the Right has hated Acorn for YEARS. Why? Well, among other ways that they try to help the poor (and the Right HATES it when people help the poor) they REGISTER them to VOTE. And the Right, HATES is when poor people vote. That's about it. It's a ridiculous accusation, though rather fitting with all the conservative "up-is-downism" that we've seen recently, to say that they even have an Anti-Republican agenda, let alone an anti-American one! Registering people to vote - PERIOD - should ALWAYS be considered a good thing. That they happen to focus on registering the urban poor... well they might vote overwhelmingly Democratic, but does that make Acorn anti-republican? More likely it makes the Republicans Anti-City, Anti-Poor and Anti-Minority (after all, poor whites tend to vote Republican, though I'll never understand why.) (OK I know why, but the reasons are STUPID, and I'll probably explain why in my next post - so stay tuned, you're gonna LOVE it!)

So, basically... few things will get you to the top of the Republican's shit-list faster than HELPING POOR PEOPLE.

The next question: If they hate them so much (and if they were such a threat to God, America and Apple Pie) why I have I never heard of them before now?

It's related to the fact that you never heard the words "community organizer" on TV before. And thus there was no rational way to tie the organization to a candidate, even by the conservative's lax standards of rationality. But then Senator Obama made much about the fact the he once worked as a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER! Ah! So now, we have a connection! (Becuase that's sort of what they do!) And all we have to do is CONNECT THE TWO, and we can get the benefit of smearing Senator Obama, when we smear Acorn! Kill two birds with one stone!

So from then on you heard how Obama and Acorn were like Bacon and Eggs. They probably spent more hours on television driving this message home than Obama ever spent working for Acorn. But whatever, the two must be linked! (Or else.... this won't work! So LINK THEM!)

Now that they're LINKED, it's time to smear! What to use, what to use, what to use... I KNOW! VOTER FRAUD! We'll accuse them of trying to steal the election! Just like those damned liberals have been accusing US of doing for the past eight years! (I mean... putting aside that, you know... we actually DID and all!) So they did some digging and found that, OMG!, there were some irregularities amongst the tens of thousands of registrations they submitted! NOW WE GOT 'EM!

Well... not quite. In the minds of the brainless zombies who have no reason to vote republican but do anyway, and the rich folks who pretty much don't care about the truth if the lie will help them get a tax break, perhaps... But back in th ereal world, "voter fraud" requires... oh, um... what's the word I'm looking for... um... oh, yeah:

VOTES!

Now, was it ever demonstrated that so much as a single fraudulent vote was cast in this last election as the result of an irregular registration by Acorn? No. It hasn't. In fact ACTUAL voter fraud in this country is extremely rare. If you took every proven fraudulent vote ever cast in the history of presidential elections in this country and gave them all to McCain in the state tat he lost by the narrowest margin, it would not be nearly enough to flip even that one state. (And let's not forget: He lost by about 10 states!)

What some Acorn employees WERE accused of was the crime of Voter REGISTRATION Fraud. The thing is... real crimes should have a victim. Did this one? YES. Who was the victim? ACORN ITSELF! Don't believe me? Don't buy that? Consider this scenario:

Let's say the "New Life Baptist Church" has raised some money and wants to have a voter registration drive. They know their community leans heavily Republican and each Registration means a likely vote. And since they support the Republican agenda, they want to create as many votes as they can. So they get all the necessities lined up: They recruit people to go door, they ordered all the forms, they put the word out... Time and money are spent. They even paid the volunteers $100 each for their work if they turned in, say, at least 100 registrations. The thing is.... they've got this... one guy. He's kind of lazy, and a bit of a drunk. He turns his 100 forms in, and takes his $100 (and probably goes to buy booze.) But when the Church reviews the forms, they find that almost all of them are bogus: I.P.Freely, Coca Roach, G.I.Lovemoney, etc... Now, the law requires them to turn in ALL forms (that foiled their plan to just throw away all of the ones registered as 'Democrat') but being good citizens they put this one guy's forms aside and notified the registration board that they were suspect.

At this point, I think it's clear that the town drunk has basically stolen from the church, right? He took his hundy, and at the end of the day, not a single vote will be generated. So the church's money was wasted, and their candidate harmed - or at least... he'll come up 100 votes shorter than he would have if their money was spent on someone who actually did their job! Now... is anyone reading this and thinking that the CHURCH is the bad guy here? No?

Well...

Switch "New Life Baptist Church" with "Acorn" and switch "Republican" and "Democrat" around and you'll have the EXACT thing that happened to Acorn. And YES, it was in fact ACORN that alerted the authorities to the bogus forms in the first place - even a recent FOX piece admits this. (Thought they do so in the very last paragraph, almost as an afterthought. I mean, why let the facts get in the way of good right-wing propaganda, right?)

Fast forward to this past week. Video's coming out about Acorn employees helping pimps and hookers get homes! OMG! I'm not going to let THIS PASS, am I?

Well, I got this real moron thing I do, it's called thinking? So let's think for a moment.

Again, what crime was committed, exactly? Someone was going to help a Pimp get a house. Wow. That's it? So if I want to sell my house, and the higehst offer was from a pimp, I can't take it? Don't pimps and hookers need housing too? OK, obviously I'm joking a but here, but seriously: we're talking about four or five (and I don't care if it's FIFTY, and I'll get to why in a sec) employees who helped these clowns (BTW, paid Right-Wing undercover sting operatives, mind you) with some paperwork, even though they said they were a Pimp and a Hooker. (I guess it's not much of a stretch for a couple of conservatives to pose as Pimps and Whores!) It looks bad, sure, and makes good play on Fox. But there's really no substance here.

Do the acton of these individuals mean that ACORN is a CRIMINAL organization? WTF? Hell NO! These people were FIRED. FIRED because the organization DOES NOT WANT their employees helping pimps and hookers! DUH! If they came out and defended them? FINE, I'd be right with you saying, "WTF?" But those people are GONE. Out on there asses. And the one girl who, after saying on taped that she murder her husband (and no, she didn't!) said, "[She] was just playing along, because [she] knew these two bozo's were bogus?" Well, if that's true, she should consider suing from wrongful termination. She probably won't win, but either way, if anything Acorn overreacted. Otherwise they did what ANY organization would do if a few of it's employees were accessories to crimes. THEY. FIRED. THEM.

Now, what these two clowns with their dad's video camera did was NOT journalism, any more than it was law enforcement, or time-travel for that matter. If they had wanted to practice journalism, this kind of investigation may have taken a year or more. They would have had to go to nearly ALL of the Acorn offices. They would have had to divulge how many places turned them away. They would have to have interviews with Acorn officials, show them the tapes, get an official explanation... They would have had to gather WAAAY more evidence to show that this was a sytsemic problem, something that Acorn was doing as a matter of policy, and not just the incompetence of four or five (or fifty) employees. That kind of investigation takes detetive work, and research, and hours and hours of interviews, and finally some solid write-up presenting ALL the evidence. These idiots just don't have the chops for it. They're ameteurs, and they should have been laughed of the set for such shoddy work. But hey, this was Fox, who never lets a proper investigation get in the way of good right-wing propaganda.

Now, ACORN has over 1200 offices, and THOUSANDS of employees and volunteers. So the actions of four or five, or even FIFTY, at different offices does not mean that we simply disband the whole organization. At least... If you're a conservative, you REALLY don't what to start applying that logic with any consistency. (But then when have conservatives ever had consistent logic?)

Why not? Well... THIS, for a start.

Give it a GOOD, LONG READ. It'll take some time, it's quite a list.

I guess if you've got an organization with so many swindlers, thieves, criminals, and deviants in it, it's just got. to. go. Right? Hey, I'm all for it, just say the word. I've got no use for any of these scumbags anyway.

And my favorite part? Just to answer the inevitable question from some con who doesn't bother reading down very far for himself...

Why not a list of Democrat Offenders?

(from the site:)

I promise, if you’re a Republican, you don’t want a list of Democratic Offenders. Without it you are able to protest a valid point. I agree, without a comparable list, there’s no comprehensive way to judge. I prefer the list to speak for itself. These are prominent Republicans. I did not make a list of every republican criminal. These are the leaders of the Republican party.

During my research the Justice Department provided a great resource for all federal offenders and I could easily observe that prominent Republicans produce 3 to 5 times more federal indictments than Dems. It may be higher. But that’s not the embarrassing part for conservatives. So far, I have only found a few prominent democrats that are pedophiles. It’s a huge discrepancy. If I had enough time to research specific clergymen and examine their political affiliations, the numbers of republican pedophiles would skyrocket. If you haven’t looked into clergy and sexual abuse, do a few dozen google searches and take the time to open your eyes to the problem. It’s not just the Catholic church.

Even a short poll of prominent sexual deviants shows a strikingly large number of Republicans of all religious denomination breaking the law. If you doubt me, please, by all means, do the research yourself. It’s not difficult. I did all of my work with Google and caffeine.

So conservatives, look... it's very simple. Two principles really, that I think you'll find helpful in your day to day lives...

1) Treat others the way that you wish to be treated, or treat yourself. If you don't think that the Church did anything wrong in the above scenario, stop saying that Acorn did.

2) If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. (Or walk around naked.) Bottom live? You're like people living in thatched huts, made out of shit, complaining about a few cookie-crumbs on the kitchen counter in the modest suburban home of a few Democratic supporters.

Oh yeah... and one more thing:

About the sadly bi-partisan vote last week to cut of all of Acorns funding and federal projects? Every democrat who voted for that was a traitorous, cowardly, unprincipled COWARD. They were every bit the SCUMBAGS that every Republican was who voted for it. Only thing is, I expected better of the Democrats.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have though...

The problem of this country can be summed up in eleven words:

The Republicans have no brains
and
the Democrats have no balls.

My Position on Torture

I thought I would post about this, as it's something that been generally well received, though still a bit controversial, over on MediaMatters.

There is a lot of controversy over whether or not to prosecute those responsible for torturing terror suspects as part of the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, rest assured, that, for me, it would be unthinkable to prosecute the low-ranking grunts that actually carried out the 'enhanced interrogations.' Liberal though I may be, I firmly believe that soldiers in the battlefield must follow the orders given by their superiors, and that it should not be up to the soldier to figure out whether a given order is legal or not. If you tolerate that, you will have chaos in the battlefield, people will die, and ANY war effort will crumble. No, soldiers and low ranking intelligence agents MUST carry out their orders, as given. It therefore falls onto the officers and the executive branch of our civilian government to GIVE THEM LEGAL ORDERS, and to be held accountable when they do not. It is therefore the limit of the scope of this discussion as to whether on not to prosecute the high ranking officers, CIA directer George Tenet (and any high ranking subordinates who were the architects of this policy), Attourney General Alberto Gonzalez for crafting the Administration's pseudo-legal reasoning on torture and both former President George W. Bush and former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

And (surprise, surprise) to me there is no question. These men MUST stand trial. The use of torture is both illegal and immoral and profoundly un-American. Is this just my own personal opinion? Hardly. This position is informed by two clear statements in our founding documents:

The Sixth ammendment to our Constitution guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. It is clear that the terror suspects have had these rights denied them.

The Eighth Amendment to our Constitution forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. If TORTURE is not "cruel and unusual" then the words have no meaning.

It is therefore pretty hard for anyone to argue that picking someone up, imprisoning them indefinitely without trial or due process and torturing them, is somehow "Pro-American" when these acts are expressively forbidden by our founding document.

"But Eddie," says the bed-wetting Right-Winger, "These rights only apply to Americans! The terrorists aren't Americans!"

You're WRONG, but nice try. First off, there HAVE been American Citizens who have become victims of these circumstances. Second, how, pray tell, DOES the Constitution protect OUR rights? It does this by limiting the actions that our Government may take; by limiting its authority. Its authority is further limited in these matters by the Geneva Convention. And neither that treaty nor the Constitution of the United States gives any exceptions to the limits placed on our government that they should not apply to non-U.S. citizens. And if any court should say they do, I will find this a profoundly un-American interpretation. Only by PROHIBITING these practices are our rights defended. For, once you allow loopholes, those in power need only find a way to apply the loop hole to anyone they deem inconvenient and YOUR rights are GONE. We mustn't allow this. We mustn't tolerate this at all! (Come on Conservatives! Why do you try actually sticking to your principle of 'limiting' the 'power' of government for a change?!)

"But Eddie," continues the cowardly right-winger, "The enemy is so savage! They BEHEAD people! Without trial! They give no quarter! They offer no rights! They're BRUTAL!"

To which I ask, "If they're so horrible, why on earth should we aspire to become MORE like them?"

"But, but, but Eddie," continues the now trembling Conservative, "Those people (Bush/Cheney & co.) Were trying to save America! They were trying to save YOU!"

OK. First things last. This argument is utter bullshit, and I'll explain why. There is simply no way that Al-Quaeda can destroy AMERICA. In their single biggest battlefield victory, the killed 3000 civilians, and knocked down a few buildings. Not bad, but it cost them their entire air capability a the time do it, and in return we overthrew two sovereign governments within 18 months of the attack. Bottom line? Al-Quaeda poses no threat to my COUNTRY.

You want to know who poses a threat to America? To the American way of life? To American values? Cowardly conservative who, out of either fear or a lust for power or vengeance, will destroy the Constitution, and destroy the very values that made America worth defending in the first place. They're not saving the COUNTRY! OUR GOVERNMENT is the only real threat to this COUNTRY! And only by letting them set aside those values that make US the GOOD GUYS. By setting aside those quintessential American values in order to... what? Save some buildings and save a few lives.

Now... I don't want to seem callous about the loss of life. It's tragic, and I truly mourn every American civilian and every American soldier lost to this enemy. But the bitter fact remains that we will all eventually die. And nothing can stop this. You will die. I will die. (Hopefully later, rather than sooner!) But we WILL all DIE. Period. What must LIVE ON... What must outlive us and our great-grandchildren by centuries and more are the freedoms and liberties that made American the greatest country in the history of the world. It is our FREEDOM that makes us great. And Al-Quaeda can simply NOT take that away. Only OUR GOVERNMENT can. And only if we, in our fear, let them. And this is the ONLY thing worth defending, the only thing worth fighting for in the first place.

And should I die because our government refuse to torture, will my death be taken bitterly? Not at all. In the extremely unlikely event, the utterly minuscule chance that I should be killed in a terrorist plot that could have been prevented if only were we willing to trash our values, then I will have dies in defense of those values, in defense of FREEDOM, every bit as much as those Soldiers dying in the fields of Afghanistan, and arguably MORE so than the Soldiers dying in Iraq.

We must not let our FEAR allow us to permit our government to do the unconscionable. We must not betray our values, or sacrifice our freedoms, just to save our skin. To do so is both cowardly and traitorous. To do so is to give in to fear and hate and to lose sight of what it is we are actually fighting for.

America stands for human rights, the due process of law and, above, all for the freedoms laid out in our Constitution. These are what make us the 'good guys' in this fight. These are what make this land and our way of life worth defending. If we, in our fear and in expediency, allow those things which make this country great to die, then we are no better than our enemy. And THIS liberal will not sit idly and watch his country brought so low. No one who would can do so and still call themselves PATRIOT.



-----------------------------
You may notice that my argument focuses entirely on the MORAL and PATRIOTIC implications of allowing torture. The opposing arguments might carry some weight IF torture was ever shown to be effective, but it hasn't. It fails every common sense test under every scenario. I may take up the more PRACTICAL arguments against torture at a later date, though I personally find them to be moot. Regardless of the [largely imagined] results, torture remains illegal, immoral and Un-American.